Comment by dam_jackalopes
19 hours ago
"we're already admitting that the penalty is based on vibes and not simply an unbiased calculation"
We are? I haven't read the judgement and I'm pretty sure you haven't either. You're making a pretty big assumption here.
"Sounds like that number is no more justified than $25,000,000.00 or $25."
The penalty was written into law. That's what justified it.
The irony is that you're saying the award is based on "vibes" or feelings but, honestly, that's all I've been seeing from critics of the penalty. No one can explain what's wrong with it from a legal perspective. It's just been a lot of "it's a really high number!" and "they're making numbers up!" from people who can't point to anything from the decision itself.
The maximum penalty is written into law. The minimum penalty is like, $1. The judge can arbitrarily choose any number in that range. This is how judicial verdicts work in almost any context (sometimes there are higher minimums, or sentencing guidelines, but judges have a lot of flexibility).
Clearly. The judge lowered the penalty by some 90%. What about that makes the reward in this case "outlandish" or based on "vibes"?
It was right there in the clause before the one you quoted. They reduced it by 90%. That 90% was arbitrary and based on vibes.
In math terms, Concrete × vibes = vibes. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Nonsense. You're stating that you have insight into the motivations of a judge without any evidence that you have any inkling, at all, that you know why a decision was reached. You made a claim, feel free to provide any evidence to back up that claim.
The best part is the clause you tell me to reference is extensively explained in the judgement. That you haven't read.