Did you read the article, the analysis (linked from the article), or the judgment itself (also linked from the article)?
I'll try to do an executive summary.
Background:
1) group leaves a company and uses the company's patents without permission
2) company gets judgment to stop group using the patents
3) group ignores judgment and shifts to selling online
4) company asks Google to block group's websites
5) group starts auto-creating new websites to get around specific-URL blocks
6) company asks Google to block all sites containing a particular string (like they do with hate speech and child porn) - Google refuses
7) this court case happens
Arguments:
Company says Google has the ability to abide by the previous court ruling, so should abide by the previous court ruling
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because Google's international
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because there's a national border between court and Google
Google says they aren't involved
Company says Google Ads did business with group up to the day the court proceedings started
Findings:
Court says you can't argue "international" and "national border between court and Google" - they're mutually exclusive
Court cites precedents from US, Australian, UK, and French courts showing court has jurisdiction
Court says Google Ads contract makes Google involved
Judgment:
Court orders Google to comply with previous court's ruling
I think that's everything.
What does the court want? The court is instructing Google to use the capability it already has to act in accordance with a judgment rendered in accordance with patent laws, and to pay the company's court costs.
What are Google's rights and responsibilities? Again, I refer people to 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006). Google has a responsibility to comply with the court order, and a right to continue doing business in Canada as long as they abide by the laws of the land.
Are they complying? They were not making a best-effort to comply, as shown by their demonstrated ability to block hate-speech or child-porn sites based on specific search strings and their refusal to use this capability in this instance. Google also had (but no longer has) a financial interest in having those pages available to be found. They have two weeks (from the date of the judgment) to actually comply.
--
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
I'll try to do an executive summary.
Background:
1) group leaves a company and uses the company's patents without permission
2) company gets judgment to stop group using the patents
3) group ignores judgment and shifts to selling online
4) company asks Google to block group's websites
5) group starts auto-creating new websites to get around specific-URL blocks
6) company asks Google to block all sites containing a particular string (like they do with hate speech and child porn) - Google refuses
7) this court case happens
Arguments:
Company says Google has the ability to abide by the previous court ruling, so should abide by the previous court ruling
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because Google's international
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because there's a national border between court and Google
Google says they aren't involved
Company says Google Ads did business with group up to the day the court proceedings started
Findings:
Court says you can't argue "international" and "national border between court and Google" - they're mutually exclusive
Court cites precedents from US, Australian, UK, and French courts showing court has jurisdiction
Court says Google Ads contract makes Google involved
Judgment:
Court orders Google to comply with previous court's ruling
I think that's everything.
What does the court want? The court is instructing Google to use the capability it already has to act in accordance with a judgment rendered in accordance with patent laws, and to pay the company's court costs.
What are Google's rights and responsibilities? Again, I refer people to 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006). Google has a responsibility to comply with the court order, and a right to continue doing business in Canada as long as they abide by the laws of the land.
Are they complying? They were not making a best-effort to comply, as shown by their demonstrated ability to block hate-speech or child-porn sites based on specific search strings and their refusal to use this capability in this instance. Google also had (but no longer has) a financial interest in having those pages available to be found. They have two weeks (from the date of the judgment) to actually comply.
--
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