This is great in theory, but in practice a lot of illegal acts (whether criminal or civilly illegal) hinges on intent, state of mind and the benchmark of the illusive “reasonable person”.
A simple criminal example is would be the difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter and murder. Which can be summed up respectively as lack of intent, lack of intent for outcome and intentional.
To suss this out you’d have to figure out the state of mind of the person in question and going over their communications is one of many ways to do this.
In the context of anti-trust this gets a bit more complicated but in a nutshell that is severely lacking the necessary nuance the difference comes down to getting ahead by legal pro-competitive means and getting ahead by illegal means.
To figure out if a company got ahead just because they had a great product (or got lucky) and based on that they had an organic market growth v. them getting ahead because they had access to means and methods they only derived from their size and market share in other markets, it’s important to look at communications to see what the intent behind decisions was.
This becomes increasingly more important when you’re dealing with a behemoth of a company where the lines between different departments and projects are blurred.
All of that is not even touching upon the fact that pretty much everything is an action, or act, even the choice of inaction.
Speaking, making a decision, not acting on knowledge, etc. They can all be considered acts.
To sum it up, intent is often a deciding element of an illegal act.
But if Google ends up being punished, it isn't because of these communications, it is because of what these communications prove in terms of the acts they are being prosecuted for.
A simple criminal example is would be the difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter and murder. Which can be summed up respectively as lack of intent, lack of intent for outcome and intentional.
To suss this out you’d have to figure out the state of mind of the person in question and going over their communications is one of many ways to do this.
In the context of anti-trust this gets a bit more complicated but in a nutshell that is severely lacking the necessary nuance the difference comes down to getting ahead by legal pro-competitive means and getting ahead by illegal means.
To figure out if a company got ahead just because they had a great product (or got lucky) and based on that they had an organic market growth v. them getting ahead because they had access to means and methods they only derived from their size and market share in other markets, it’s important to look at communications to see what the intent behind decisions was. This becomes increasingly more important when you’re dealing with a behemoth of a company where the lines between different departments and projects are blurred.
All of that is not even touching upon the fact that pretty much everything is an action, or act, even the choice of inaction. Speaking, making a decision, not acting on knowledge, etc. They can all be considered acts.
To sum it up, intent is often a deciding element of an illegal act. But if Google ends up being punished, it isn't because of these communications, it is because of what these communications prove in terms of the acts they are being prosecuted for.