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
I read the article, | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
See here for starters
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 03:57 PM EST
http://samuelhorti.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/milorad-trkulja-the-aussie-that-sued
-google/

Google goofed big time. Remember the next time something like this happens it
could be one of us or if you like one of you.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Since when did Google get judicial powers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST
They seem to have acted, as judge, jury and executioner despite knowing they
were wrong. That is unacceptable and no amount of 'spinning' will hide that
fact. We can do without developing a cult of Google in addition to the alleged
cult of Apple. They did wrong and got slapped end of story.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I read the article,
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 06:10 PM EST
The only 'fact' I found was: "...the police report explicitly rejected the
possibility that it was claiming as truth...".
The police are not a position to rule on this matter. The only thing they can
legally say is that the plaintiff has no police record, and is not under
investigation, neither of which has been mentioned. No quotes (other than the
plaintiff) are included. No sources are cited. It's an opinion piece
masquerading as journalism. As far as we know, there was no proof provided to
Google. The proper procedure would have been to file charges against the
perpetrators. Clearly, the court has no understanding of how the internet
works, or how stupid its users can be. The plaintiff went after the deep
pockets, and won.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Other way around - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:33 AM EST
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 )