Judge in US/Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/judge-in-us-v-google-trial-didnt-know-if-firefox-is-a-browser-or-search-engine/

by leotravis10 • 3 years ago

49 26 3 years ago

arstechnica.com

TechBro8615• 3 years ago

In some sense maybe that's for the best, since it means they won't bring any pre-existing biases or misunderstandings into their interpretation of fairness. It's up to the lawyers on each side to present their case starting from the fundamental principles.

ars• 3 years ago

A Judge is not expected to know the particular technical details of a case.

Like if it was a medical case are we going to mock the judge for not knowing the obvious difference between a hemangioma and a hematoma?

The lawyers are expected to explain their case enough that the Judge can understand it.

subjectsigma• 3 years ago

Why isn’t there some resource available for judges to ask a reasonable amount of technical questions to an impartial third party?

I could easily imagine them pulling a consultant from CISA or something for this particular case.

dylan6044• 3 years ago

Isn't it the prosecutor's job to make the case? If that means remedial explanations to the judge and/or jury, that's their job. At least with a jury, then can maybe figure some of this out during the selection process. I also seriously doubt that the lawyers for either side have not done research into the judge's case history to see what prior decisions have been made.

I actually am somewhat encouraged by the judge asking rather than faking it.

rahimnathwani• 3 years ago

You're suggesting government employees are impartial?

gadflyinyoureye• 3 years ago

The third party resource exists. It is called Google.

williamcotton• 3 years ago

Both sides hire impartial expert witness firms during the discovery phase to produce evidence, partake in depositions, conference with judges, meet and confers, etc.

burkaman2• 3 years ago

A judge can appoint their own expert witness if they want to. They can also use a less formal "technical advisor": https://files.klgates.com/files/publication/bf2e184f-05cd-4f...

supportengineer• 3 years ago

I sometimes wonder if I am living on the same planet as other people.

kube-system5• 3 years ago

If your home has a personal computer in it, you are in the minority on this planet.

kalupa• 3 years ago

does "personal computer" also overlap with what we still call "phone"?

torstenvl• 3 years ago

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine.

This is the only line in the link that supports the headline, and - seeing as how it includes the author's judgment about the facts but does not include any of the actual facts - I find it extremely unconvincing.

That doesn't mean the headline is wrong, but it's bad journalism to skip facts and just substitute your own judgments instead. I normally expect better from Ars.

Did the judge interrupt opening to ask a question? If so, what was the question? If not, what does it mean to "appear[] briefly confused"? Did he have a particular look on his face? Don't bother looking in the linked article for the answer to these questions, because you won't find it.

burkaman2• 3 years ago

It seems the transcript is sealed for three months: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-....

I would love to read it and see if this headline is accurate, or if the judge was just trying to clarify a confusing argument from a lawyer.

He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

I mean, same? I am a software engineer and I don't really know what this sentence means. This is the opening statements, I don't think the judge is already supposed to be a domain expert.

rdtsc• 3 years ago

It's not quite exact just based on the article body. It says:

Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine.

It's not implausible to be confused about what Mozilla is. There is Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corporation, and even Mozilla China. Then, there was Mozilla Suite which had a "Navigator": Mozilla's browser. Then the browser was named Phoenix. Now it is Firefox, or more correctly "Mozilla Firefox".

Granted, it still bad that the judge deciding such things couldn't learn enough of a background there to keep things straight, but it's also not exactly what the title describes either. So feels a little click-bait-y.

TrueGeek• 3 years ago

On "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" this weekend they described Mozilla as "a security research firm". Which, in the context it was given (the Mozilla Foundation report on car privacy) isn't wrong. But it can also be confusing for people / judges who may be thinking "Wait? I thought that was a search engine?"

nvm0n2• 3 years ago

Why does this case not have a jury? Expected to last too long?

neilv• 3 years ago

So, on top of weighing complicated antitrust questions, Mehta might also struggle to keep track of basic facts like how search was conducted at any given point in the case's timeline. While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

I think it's the job of the lawyers to explain, but the phrasing here seems to be putting any failure on the judge.

If you're a journalist writing like that, about a judge on a major case, during opening statements, IMHO, the judge had better have been eating paste and flinging dung at the courtroom.

Otherwise, show some respect for the process. Chronologies and timelines, who's who, what's what, domain-specific information... presumably these occur in many cases, and often need explaining and tracking.

pipeline_peak• 3 years ago

Am I the only one confused Googles aging decrepit search is the bigger problem and not the fact that every browser other than Firefox and Safari are based on their code?

pmoriarty• 3 years ago

I'm much more concerned about Google spying on everyone.

Judge in US/Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine

Related Stories