decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sets a dangerous president... | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Failure to act is the problem for Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
They and others were asked to remove the false information. Google failed to do
so. Where does that leave them?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sets a dangerous president...
Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, October 31 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT
Could be yes, could be no. Depends on exactly what the ruling is.

If Google could (have) escape(d) the ruling by just refusing to return ANY
search results on the guy, then I think the ruling might be just. (No idea
about legal.) But requiring search engines to not talk about you might be quite
reasonable.

The only problem with this is that many people have the same name. That raises
a problem that I don't see a good answer to except that Google shouldn't judge.
(This isn't the case for things like French or Belgian news, where Google could
just decline to index new services located in that country...and where the
country is readily identifiable. In that case declining to index those
publications seems a reasonable response.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.03 seconds