Quote:robkelk wrote:You were calling the fact that I raised a serious concern a "red herring". If you weren't being sarcastic, then you were accusing me of knowingly making fake accusations in order to confound an issue. That's worse then.
You are correct - the decision does not place a territorial limitation on the injunction.
The decision also cites 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006) to support the injunction's applicability in the USA despite its being granted in a non-US court and its limitation of Google's freedom of expression - so there is no overreach and no precedent was set by this case.
And I have not used sarcasm at all in this thread.
As for the ruling, I don't know whether USA and Canada have some kind of treaty making the results of a patent lawsuit binding in each other's territory or not. If there were, it would justify removing those results form the USA search pages. If not, I don't see how it could be justified, even if other canadian veredicts had already made the same demand.
But "within USA" is not "worldwide", which again is what Canada is claiming.
So please, explain to me in layman's terms: how is this NOT that Canada claims the right to force Google to delist any link that goes against their laws, for everybody in the world? And if Canada has that right, why doesn't the EU, China, Iran and North Korea have that right too?