If I am looking it up correctly, judge Amit Mehta was appointed by Obama (who had ties with Google), and still ruled google a Monopoly.
I just like stuff like this as it shows a judge can put bias aside in a ruling at least once, supposedly.
Not really. It could be simply that in an effort to not appear biased he over corrected and ruled more harshly against Google.
Now I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but it's just another facet of why it's important to avoid bias entirely, not simply trust that someone can rise above them.
Except that bias is an inevitable consequence of human psychology. The trick is to minimize it.
Yes. That's exactly my point. Minimizing it in this case means having a judge without any dotted line connections to Google.
If I am looking it up correctly, judge Amit Mehta was appointed by Obama (who had ties with Google), and still ruled google a Monopoly.
I just like stuff like this as it shows a judge can put bias aside in a ruling at least once, supposedly.
Not really. It could be simply that in an effort to not appear biased he over corrected and ruled more harshly against Google.
Now I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but it's just another facet of why it's important to avoid bias entirely, not simply trust that someone can rise above them.
Except that bias is an inevitable consequence of human psychology. The trick is to minimize it.
Yes. That's exactly my point. Minimizing it in this case means having a judge without any dotted line connections to Google.
Agreed