> The main lesson Google appears to have learned from the Microsoft antitrust case from the 1990s is that media scrutiny and bad headlines can sink a corporate defendant’s reputation, if not its case.
I tend to agree with this though, and this reason isn't disgusting. What am I missing?
Imo it is reasonable, but still disgusting. They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them. A bit like you wouldn't necessarily tell your neighbor you're having an affair.
> They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them
I think there's more to it than that. That may well be true, who knows, but it's also the endless punditry and click-baitery that will surround any information here, which will just spread "takes" and thus opinions with little basis in reality.
That is to say, there is a legitimate fear that even a well-behaved organisation will be not understood as such when a pundit industry's salary depends on its not understanding it as such.
> They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them.
Fair enough, if the way they operate is legal, but a trade secret/competitive advantage/... But since this is about antitrust, I'm hoping we'll get so see exactly how they operate with respect to allegedly violating the law.
I tend to agree with this though, and this reason isn't disgusting. What am I missing?