blackaeronaut Wrote:First off, this isn't hate speech or child pornography. This is a copyright infringement suit,Copyright has nothing to do with this matter. The IP laws being violated - not by Google - are patent laws.
blackaeronaut Wrote:and something we've already beaten a dead horse over. In fact, I've seen nothing in the article about the case between Equustek and Datalink other than a ruling has already been handed out. Who the hell are these people and does Equustek really have a legitimate claim?Well, I did ask for other red herrings...
See the actual judgment, section II, paragraphs 4-7. They're the patent holders, and the courts say the claim is legitimate.
blackaeronaut Wrote:Secondly, Google is already attempting to comply. If anything, I would like to applaud their efforts to not censor sites needlessly. Evidently, all they ask is to be given a chance to review the webpages in question and determine if they are linking to said product. If the Canadian courts REALLY want Google to act to their satisfaction, then they need to submit a complete list of webpages they want Google to censor.
Sorry, but in this case the pot is calling the kettle black - the courts can't blame Google for their ambiguity.
That isn't the way it works in other fields of illegal activity. "Justice Fenlon noted that Google already filtered its search results to comply with the law to remove child pornography and hate speech in certain countries. The potential threat of accidental, innocent blocking didn't mean Google could do nothing." If they can filter to comply with one law, they can filter to comply with another law. They just don't want to obey the court order.
There's no ambiguity here. Datalink has been prohibited by the courts from selling the GW 1000 through any website. Google search is a website. Google definitely has software and a database that they can use to search for a string of text on websites - it's their main draw to their own website. They don't need a list of URLs; they can google it.
Also, see the actual judgment, section V, paragraphs 50-63. They've already admitted responsibility here.
(By the way, it wasn't the courts that gave Google the list of URLs, it was the plaintiffs. The court only stepped in when that proposed solution proved ineffective and Google refused to try a different solution.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012