Comment on Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial
andallthat@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Meta argued that “the FTC’s case rests almost entirely on emails (many more than a decade old) allegedly expressing competitive concerns” but suggested that this is only “intent” evidence, “without any evidence of anticompetitive effects.”
Not sure I understand the argument. if I write that I’m going to buy another company instead of completing with them, then I go ahead and I do but that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?
whereisk@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Yes. The argument is, raise the burden of proof: you are proving what my intent was, and what actions I took, but you should be proving negative market effects. Just because I said it, and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded. And if I didn’t there’s no reason to be broken up.
andallthat@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Thanks, I understand better now.
On related note, I wish I had know of the “just because I said it and I did it, didn’t mean I succeeded” line of defense when I was a kid
whereisk@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Haha! Yes, but not sure how effective it would have been. I think parenting counts intent way above outcomes.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 days ago
"Attempted murder? What next? The Nobel prize in attempted physics?