Google PageRank Suit Dismissed 97
idobi writes to mention a C|Net article covering the dismissal of the Google page ranking case. Despite the loss, KinderStart also saw the ruling as a victory. The judge left the door open for a refiling, and the company is seeking to bring the suit to class-action status. Assistant professor of law at Marquette University Law School Eric Goldman comments in the article: "Frankly, there are very few novel or surprising aspects of this ruling. For example, the judge rejected the claim that Google was a state actor, but this ruling is entirely consistent with the dozen or so precedents involving private Internet companies ... The other rulings seemed very sensible and fairly predictable from the complaint. It's pretty clear that the judge thinks that some of KinderStart's claims have no chance even with repleading, but the judge apparently has decided to give KinderStart that chance rather than just shutting the door."
Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, the "open for refiling" thing means that they can sue again if they thing Google MANUALLY changed the ranking, it's not really relevant to the case.
Re:Wtf? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Re:Wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even then, though, why shouldn't they be free to manually change the ranking if they wanted to? It's their wholly-owned database, so is there any reason they should be kept from altering their own data?
"You suck", says google (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that the judge wanted to leave the idea open, since it hadn't been explored completely and therefore he couldn't absolutely rule it out, but I doubt it would fly. First they have to show that malice, and I can't help but think that they'll have a hard time with that. They'd need somebody with inside knowledge of the decision process; the judge has pretty much said that the lower number is not in and of itself evidence of malice.
I'm sure they've got something they'll throw at this, so I doubt it's the last time we've heard of them. I suspect from here it'll be:
kinderstart: we have evidence
Judge: no, you don't. Go away. You suck.
kinderstart: We sue you! We sue you!
And the great cycle of life begins again.
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose I can see that from a legal standpoint. Still, what's wrong with Google saying "they suck" when specifically asked? It seems like the difference between me standing on a corner shouting "kinderstart is worthless" and saying the same thing in response to someone asking me w
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:3, Informative)
So the judge is saying that he's also not completely closed to that idea, either. Google would probably say that a page rank is a matter of opinion. They'll respond that it's not; it's an objective number, and you artifically lowered ours. Google will say that the number is a product of an alg
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:2)
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:2)
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:2)
However, statements of opinion are protected under US law from being the target of defamation suits.
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:2)
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:4, Interesting)
"In the opinion of google, KinderStart is not relevant to [some specific search criteria], i.e. KinderStart Sucks", that still shouldn't be defamation.
If they were saying:
"Google saw KinderStart suck on a phallus", (when in fact they did not see such an event), that's defamation.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation [wikipedia.org]
"...publication of a false statement of fact, made with the requisite state of mind, that causes injury"
I count on Google's page ranking system for _relevancy_, and there's no reason why manual intervention can't be part of that ranking system. If I don't like their methodology, I'll use some other search engine.
Re:"You suck", says google (Score:2)
THere is a good chance is was manually marked with a PR of 0 because that web site breaks just about every one of Google's
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Don't be obtuse. There's a big difference between libel and stating that you don't like someone when asked about them.
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Second, "if url in blacklist: return 0" is an algorithm.
Re:Wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they claim that Page Rank is an automated, objective measure of a site's relevance. If it turns out that they're manually tweaking Page Ranks in a way that they're not telling people about, they might be guilty of false advertizing. I personally think that's a stretch, but then again, IANAL, so somebody who is might not agree.
Re:Wtf? (Score:3, Interesting)
A question, then: is it ever possible to incorporate a blacklist into an automated, objective measure and have it retain that status? Suppose that blacklist had very objective criteria: "people who are suing us". Would that pass the test?
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just curious about what other people think of it.
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
AFAIK it isn't so important that the conditions be objective as it is that Google be upfront about them. For instance, Google also says that they'll block sites that in their judgment are trying to game the system. They try to come up with automated ways of figuring out
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
How abo
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Re:Wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Informative)
FTA:
-snip-
This only says that Google's defense may fail if the defendent can (this time) prove that Google manually modified anything. They couldn't prove it the first time, so I fail to see how they could with a second chance.Rank and rating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't this something like MacDonalds sueing "Fine Cuisine Ratings Inc" because they're at the bottom of the charts?
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
Delisting BMW.de (Score:2)
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Could someone explain, why i have a right to force an other company to give me a higher ranking than an other site?
and why should google be forced to not manually edit their pagerank?
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Next stop: sue Billboard for not fitting your music track in their top 40, sue Oprah for not reviewing your book.
Heck, I should sue Slashdot for my account being banned from moderating.
Re:Wtf? (Score:2, Troll)
Looking at your homepage I actually wonder why you're allowed to have an account at all. I've never seen such an horrendous abomin... oh wait...
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
For s***s and giggles (Score:5, Funny)
"It's pretty clear that the judge thinks that some of KinderStart's claims have no chance even with repleading, but the judge apparently has decided to give KinderStart that chance rather than just shutting the door."
Maybe he's just doing it for laughs when they replead. :)
Re:For s***s and giggles (Score:2)
Thank you, thank you, I be here all ze veek.
Thank you, Captain Generalization (Score:2)
Who do they think they are? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was google, I would permanently ban them.
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
if(url = 'kinderstart.com')
pagerank.decreaseBy(100)
It's automatic.
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:1)
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:1)
Sure - and by this reasoning, the telco's and ISP's *can* charge variable rates for access to *their* networks. It belongs to them, they made it.
/hivemind want to treat Google different than any other company.
[shakes head] Your logic, and that of the posters agreeing with you, is more proof of how the
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we, the taxpayers, hadn't paid for the phone networks in the first place, I would have absolutely no complaints about AT&T or SBC or whomever charging whatever they'd like for data crossing their wires.
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:3, Informative)
ISPs and Telcos play by a different set of rules. They've been granted a whole bunch of special privleges by the government (I certainly didn't give them permission to put phone lines through my front yard, and I'm quite certain that the government isn't going to let another telco come along and install a whole second set). You'll notice the only ISPs that we car
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
I now have copper and fiber from three different companies running along the street in front of my house. Copper from two of them is running to the wall of my house, and the third company is forever begging me to get them in there, too. There are beating themselves silly on bundling service prices, and Verizon just sued the county to get them to speed up permission to let Verizon run more fiber
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
The telcos are slightly different, in that a lot of their infrastructure is on public land.
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
exactly. have you seen the site in question [kinderstart.com]? it's a total link farm SEO spam jobbie
it's in google's (and the internet's interests) to whack that kind of tripe out of the indexes entirely
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:3, Insightful)
If most searches turned up link farms, nobody would use Google. Google has every right to prot
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
Depends on whether a court would find them to have monopolistic control over a vital resource or not. Because if a judge did, then Google might be on the hook for anti-trust behavior should they decide to pull any stunts.
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt that any court could find that. The resource is the data itself - the link crossover frequency, the traffic patterns, etc - which is free for anyone with a spider. You don't need Google to get that information, it's just a crapload easier to use them rather than do it yourself.
In order to show Google as a monopoly, you would have to show that Google's possesion of the data prevents anyone else from
Re:Who do they think they are? (Score:2)
Indeed. Why counsel argued that Google is a state actor is beyond me. Google is a 100% private entity. It isn't a utility, it isn't any sort of state monopoly, it in no way assumes traditional governmental functions, etc. I haven't read any of the pleadings (and frankly don't care) but reading that makes me believe counsel for the plaintiffs are just barking up a tree.
Google should make a selection (Score:2)
Stupidity rules! (Score:2)
Add in the paranoia that stifles innovation, the loss of productivity, the screwed up lives, and it's just pathetic. Another place we should bring back the stocks. A judge sh
Reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reason? (Score:2)
Google can make them not exist at ALL (on Google search) ift they choose.
It's Googles data, they compiled it.
All KinderStart can really do is ask NOT to be searched/robots.txt etc.
IANAL and all, but the above is "reasonable", and when SHTF, the law, even in the US, looks on "reasonable" heavily.
Re:Reason? (Score:2)
Re:Reason? (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%. If, for example, the owner of a flower shop told someone to leave their store just because of the color of their skin, people would complain (
Re:Reason? (Score:1)
Complain? Yes. Take legal action? No. If I have a business, I should be free to choose not to do business with people in red shirts, or bald people, or children younger than six.
As long as I'm not an agent of the State, there's nothing in the world illegal about that. Of course, there's nothing illegal about the protest I'll invite from the An
If at first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what the rabid anti-smokers and greedy trial lawyers did to the tobacco companies.
There is a problem with a system where plaintiffs and keep flooding the courts with cases against any person or organization with deep pockets, hoping to strike it rich by eventually getting lucky in some particular venue. This is where a "loser pays" system would have some real merit.
I am not saying that different people shouldn't be able to file separate (in time and/or location) lawsuits against a particualr party on essentially the same grounds, but that the number of such suits out to be finite, preferably small, before the burden of court costs and legal fees starts to shift over to plaintiffs.
Yeah, that's very fuzzy, but the idea seems sound to me. Suing ought not to be a fishing expedition.
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is an excellent point, and the reason I personally have trouble with the "loser pays" idea. I like the idea of discouraging frivolous suits, but not at the expense of discouraging legitimate ones; negligence and malfeasance should be punished. What I'd like to do is set up a panel to review cases that are di
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:1)
Maybe we could just pick people at random, from the populace. Maybe we should call them a "jury".
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:1)
I was thinking more in terms of a judiciary panel, or perhaps one appointed by the governor or state legislature. I concede there are problems; defining "frivolous" is a lot like defining pornography, recalling Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" remark. But a straight "loser pays" rul
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:1)
Yeah, because they'll be impartial and not purchased by special interests. Really.
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:1)
That is why lawyers often take cases on contingency -- if the case has real merit and is over a non-trivial matter (usually measured in money damages), there are almost certainly willing to take it on. Besides, there is always small claims court for those cases that don't involve a defendant with deep pockets, wher
Strawman (Score:2)
> Of course you have to consider the flip side.
> If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint
> to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
Strawman.
In a reasonable "loser pays" system, the amount that the loser pays is set by the court, usually taking into consideration the loser's financial abilities, whether the lawsuit was malicious, etc.
Lawsuit advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know how much this legal action has cost them, but it's gotten Kinderstart more recognition their Google PageRank ever did, even when it was healty. There's no such thing as bad publicity, which this whole debacle has gotten them in spades.
But, of course, if you don't offer a quality good or service, mere publicity won't result in lasting traffic and revenue. And since Kinderstart is nothing but a linkfarm, I don't think they'll benefit much in the long run. A Slashmob isn't really their demographic, anyway.
Blacklist (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, this is a scary. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I put up a little web site with FREE CONTENT, and then someone sues me because it doesn't do or say exactly what they wanted.
In what twisted, fucked-up legal theory does the idea of Google providing a free service suddenly turn into a LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide that service exactly the same way forever?
The fact that this idea was even entertained is horrific. This subjects many great free things (Wikipedia, blogs, etc.) to direct legal jeopardy -- or at least burdens them with the expense of hiring a lawyer to defend against these kind of garbage suits.
In the past few years, it's become clear that we're going down a very nasty road. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone sue the FSF because GNU/Linux does not implement some particular feature, or if it has some bug in it.
Re:Damn, this is a scary. (Score:4, Funny)
Also in the news today, the GNAA is suing the web site Slashdot. From their lawyer, "Yo man! Everytime we post some'tin on their page, it is always getting marked down yo... They cannot being don't that s**t to a n*****, it just ain't right!"
Taco, as a representative for Slashdot was quoted with a response... "WTF?!"
Small profit is still a profit. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious if they are still making a profit on AdSense syndication. If so, then the lawsuit seems even more ridiculous to me. It's like saying, "I could be making $10,000 off of you, but because I can't maintain an interesting website, I'm only making $2,000. I think I'll sue you for the rest."
A Man can Dream... (Score:1)
How do I sign up for the class action thingy?
sarcasm
Interesting (Score:1)
delist (Score:1)
Kindergarten (Score:1)
The most important lesson you learn from the public school system is as follows: if you suck the proper solution is to stop sucking.
A quick visit to the KinderStart website shows it to be poorly developed. Perhaps he could use the KinderStart search engine to find a suitable kindergarten for himself.
I bet he'd change his mind about the Pagerank real fast.
It's all in the contract (Score:1)
If someone was providing them wih free advertising then stops doing so, I don't think that is grounds for a lawsuit (but, of course, IANAL).
I see this Hamburger as a Hot Dog (Score:2)
It's a link farm (Score:2)
There isn't much in the way of original content, and they charge people to put links there.