Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Censorship Social Networks The Courts The Internet United States

Judge Orders Hundreds of Websites Delisted From Search Engines, Social Networks 308

Posted by Soulskill
from the what-on-earth dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has ruled that a number of a websites trafficking in counterfeit Chanel goods can have their domains seized and transferred to a new registrar. Astonishingly, the judge also ordered that the sites must be de-indexed from all search engines and all social media websites. Quoting the article: 'Missing from the ruling is any discussion of the Internet's global nature; the judge shows no awareness that the domains in question might not even be registered in this country, for instance, and his ban on search engine and social media indexing apparently extends to the entire world. (And, when applied to U.S.-based companies like Twitter, apparently compels them to censor the links globally rather than only when accessed by people in the U.S.) Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany. The German registrar has not yet complied with the U.S. court order, though most other domain names on the list are .com or .net names and have been seized.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Orders Hundreds of Websites Delisted From Search Engines, Social Networks

Comments Filter:
  • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @05:59PM (#38208224)
    If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex [yandex.ru] or alternatively Baidu [baidu.com].

    There is also European StartPage / Ixquick [startpage.com], but it's more for privacy. It aggregates results from Google and other search engines, so US censors still apply. Yandex and Baidu are completely independant search engines.

    Sadly, this is what US has become.
    • by hguorbray (967940) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:01PM (#38208244)
      but, but...we own the world...Jesus said so... and we have the debts and the enemies to prove it!

      I'm just sayin
      • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:02PM (#38208954)
        Yes, and at least US still has freedom of speech!

        Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.
    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:06PM (#38208296)

      Oh, the irony! [wikipedia.org] (for those who don't wanna click even on a Wikipedia link: Baidu is a Chinese search engine and is one, and probably the, worst at censorship of all search engines.)

      • by brusk (135896) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:08PM (#38208332)
        On the contrary, they're GREAT at censorship.
      • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:10PM (#38208348)
        The largest irony is in people saying how Google or US doesn't censor search results, but like this court order and the various "x number of search results have been removed from the page after complaints from copyright owners" text in search results. Different issues, but just as much censoring.
        • by Entrope (68843)

          There is definitely less -- and less harmful -- censorship in Google's results. Chinese search engines block results by words and phrases (what kind of results do you think you'd get for "Tiananmen Square"?). Google blocks results by URL (which is easier to change without changing the message).

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by CmdrPony (2505686)
            Less harmful is defined by your culture and population. Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control. You probably wouldn't want your home, place of work and everything you've worked for your whole life pillaged by rioters. Just think about it from the eyes of Chinese.

            On the other hand, what China censors on their search engine (ie., riots, Tienanmen square, etc to keep peace) is much less harmful than what US does with some mere cheap good
            • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:50PM (#38208826) Journal

              There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned. We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops. Today its websites that might be violating copyright, tomorrow its anything a senator does not like said about him, the day after its whatever some corporation does not want you be able to publish.

              All public censorship is harmful, and it should always be opposed vehemently.

              • by rtaylor (70602)

                There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned.

                So there is no type of content that you would make illegal to distribute or possess?

                • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:48PM (#38209408)

                  Personally, I can't think of any.

                • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @08:28PM (#38209728)
                  I will stand up an say it: no type of content should be illegal to distribute or possess. Sorry, I know it really hurts the "think of the children" and "oh my God terrorists will know how to make nukes" crowds, but we are supposed to be the country where people are free, inclusive of being free from censorship. Once we get into the business of prosecuting people because of files on their hard drives, documents on their bookshelves, or thoughts in their minds, we cease to be a free society (so I guess we are not a free society).
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by edumacator (910819)

                We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops.

                Patently false. We should continue to be vigilant, but your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true. The truth is there has always been censorship and most likely always will be. The question we needare to continyou ask istoday when is it appropriate to for the larger good. Right now scientist

                • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @08:37PM (#38209800)

                  your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true

                  Is that obvious? True, pornography and communist literature has been legalize, but we have since made the following things illegal or have otherwise engaged in censorship:

                  • Child pornography (for a short period of time after pornography was legalized, it was not illegal to possess child pornography; moral arguments aside, we do censor this now, and to a much greater degree than pornography in general was censored in an earlier era)
                  • Information on drug production (TiHKAL an PiHKAL cost Alexander Shulgin his research license)
                  • Islamist literature
                  • Source code for algorithms that crack certain ciphers or subvert certain security systems
                  • Laws (yes, really, there are laws that you are not allowed to know about)

                  ...and that only represents the list of things that immediately come to my mind. While there was quite a bit of censorship in the 1950s, I would say that we are either at the same level today, or even slightly beyond that level.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Entrope (68843)

              On the off chance that you're not trolling in a phenomenally stupid manner: Take your cultural relativism and your totalitarian apologetics and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

              My "less harmful" was meant primarily in the sense that a posteriori censorship of known content is more specific (less likely to result in an unintended match) than a priori censorship based on keywords or similar patterns. But if you want to look at it from a moral perspective, then yes, Google's censorship of sites selling

        • by mr1911 (1942298)

          censor

          censoring

          People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

          A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

          A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

          • by CmdrPony (2505686)
            Judge works for government. A judge ruling that domains should be taken down (especially so with other countries TLD's!) and search results censored from the search results is a government-sanctioned filtering.

            Just because you think "oh well, at least we can still say (almost) anything (almost) anywhere", doesn't make it any less censoring.
          • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:03PM (#38208964) Journal

            A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

            That depends entirely on how the judge implements enforcement of his ruling.

            A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

            I disagree.

            The search engines are publishing the existence of the counterfeit wares sites upon the request of the people using the search engines. The judge is telling the SEs that they are not allowed to report facts (that is, the existence and location of those sites).

            This is censorship any way you slice it, even if you agree with the motivation of the judge.

          • by msauve (701917)
            What makes your examples not-censorship? At the core, common definitions of censorship [pbs.org] agree that it is the restriction of speech (communications). When (if) you avoid using "Fsck" in polite conversation, you're censoring yourself.
          • by number17 (952777) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:13PM (#38209078)

            People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

            A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

            A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

            From Mirriam-Webster
            Judge: a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court
            Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
            Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

            If the judge isn't applying the rules made by the government then whose rules are they? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

          • The problem is that the internet is not limited to just one country. So what gives a US judge the right to block a site hosted and registered in another country?

            And what chance do the owners have to object if the complaint is unfounded? Do they have to spend thousands of dollars getting a lawyer in a country they don't even live in?

          • A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

            Since when does "government" have anything to do with it?

            to suppress or delete as objectionable
            Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]

            This is textbook suppression. It doesn't matter who does it, or even the particular mechanism, but if the delisting from all (or even just some) web search engines doesn't qualify as an attempt to suppress, I don't know what does.

      • Ah, but they aren't going to all censor the same things. What Google censors will likely show up on Baidu and vica versa.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      So they're saying that businesses can sue their competition out of search engines. This can't end well.
      • by Tanktalus (794810)

        You're reading the courts too broadly. They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

          As usual, people aren't thinking the security through. If we are going to create a new mechanism whereby judges have the capacity to censor out counterfeit traffickers, then all this work that we're going to do to, will also create a mechanism for censoring out Coke. You can say that would be an illegal use of the mechanism, but

          • by Tanktalus (794810)

            For the record, I didn't say I agreed with the courts. Merely trying to keep our collective disgust at the snubbing of reality based on fact rather than overblown emotion.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:49PM (#38209414)

            In all likelihood, the judge just signed off on a proposed injunction order drafted by the plaintiffs (the trademark holders). I'm assuming the defendants (the trademark infringers) didn't appear, thus allowing the court to enter an injunction against them by default. Usually, the courts have the winning side draft the terms of the proposed injunction, and the judge reviews and modifies it as necessary. Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter-- the injunction binds only those people who are parties to the case (the trademark infringers) or who work in "active concert" with them -- something that no court would deem a search engine to be.

    • While Free as in Freedom is a huge reason why this is problematic, are we free to counterfeit goods?

  • by MachDelta (704883) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:00PM (#38208234)

    Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

    • Re:This just in! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:04PM (#38208280)

      Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

      It's a little more complicated than that. Average person doesn't understand internet, but makes decisions which require such understanding and have wide reach and consequences.

      The average person doesn't understand the human body, but only surgeons get to operate on them.

      • Re:This just in! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:33PM (#38208634)
        This is the fundamental problem -- people ought not be allowed to make wide reaching decisions about things that they don't understand. We need to figure out some sort of system by which decision-makers (judges, legislators, etc) must have a working knowledge of what they are talking about. If they can't show that they know what they are talking about, their decision doesn't count. I don't go to my doctor when my transmission is acting up, nor do I ask my mechanic about health issues. It is even more critical that politicians know what they are talking about, as they get to decide what EVERYONE is and is not allowed to do.
        • by Calydor (739835)

          I'm reminded of a site I saw a few years ago with a bunch of puzzles, where you had to figure out the URL for the next puzzle by doing things like checking the page source and such. That could actually serve as an interesting basis for a series of tests to see if they understand the internet.

        • by Sique (173459)

          You know how a system is called, who only the ones considered worthy and able on their respective field of knowledge are allowed to make decisions? It's called "rule of the worthy" or in greek: aristokratia.

      • by ISoldat53 (977164)
        I once had a Federal judge prohibit me from saying "entered", as in "I entered the name into the database." This was in the early '80s. One would think judges would be a little more computer literate now.
    • by bigredradio (631970) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:07PM (#38208310) Homepage Journal
      I can see the headline now. Judge orders defendant to pay fine of one Internet.
    • The judge has simply ordered that the pipes be flushed.

    • by tkrotchko (124118)

      Do you consider a judge an average person?

      I agree the average person has no idea how the internet works. But wouldn't you expect a judge to ask for advice from an expert before issuing a ruling that on the face of it, is impossible to meet.

      • by Fluffeh (1273756)

        On that note, unless I am mistaken, the "Remove links from all social media sites" actually pointless?

        As the domains have been seized, I am assuming that the next time that google (or any other search engine) trawls them, the main content will be gone and they will be reindexed. Give it a month or so and the site will drop off anything relating to the fake rolexes (or whatever it sold) that it was indexed to when it was taken to court?

      • Actually, I do consider a judge to be "average person", just one who's expertise is in LAW, and not necessarily anything else, especially technology.

        That is the problem we have with revering people in black robes over everyday citizens, is they end up being full of themselves and thinking they are better and smarter than "average", when the truth is, they are "average". They should take the time to learn about the consequences of their "legal" opinions before they make their rulings. The consequences of ign

    • Maybe that's true, but a judge should understand "due process of law" and "right to face your accuser" and "the court's jurisdiction stops at the US border".

      By all means, confiscate counterfeit goods if they are found, and stop them from trademark infringement if they are doing that, but you cannot just forget about our hard-won liberties enshrined in the Constitution if you are a judge. Especially if you are a judge.

  • Thats the History Eraser Button!

    which is the only thing that can remove stuff form the internet.
  • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:02PM (#38208252) Homepage

    That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy

    Danica Patrick should be so happy.

  • In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.

    Yeah, good luck with that one judge.

  • USA! USA! USA! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by HangingChad (677530)

    We still have the biggest army so we rewl the internets machine!

  • by rsborg (111459) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:09PM (#38208338) Homepage

    See what Venkat Balasubramani says about this [1], in detail

    An injunction requiring Google to "de-list" sites is one remedy which SOPA expressly makes available, and ordering the registry to transfer domain names to GoDaddy and ordering GoDaddy to update the DNS records is in effect achieving another remedy which SOPA creates. The fight against SOPA may be a red herring in some ways, since IP plaintiffs are fashioning very similar remedies in court irrespective of the legislation. Thus, even if SOPA is defeated, it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory--opponents may win the battle but may not have gained much as a result.

    [1]: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm [ericgoldman.org]

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Obviously we need to create a giant P2P/anonymously indexed search engine with this type of shit going on. I honestly expect that various EU countries will be the next to push for SOPA type legislation to keep the commoners in check as the entire EU disintegrates, and the powers that be at the top try to grab more, and bring everyone more fully under their control like greece and italy.

    • by StikyPad (445176)

      It's not a red herring. Few would dispute that judges already have the powers enumerated in SOPA/PROTECT IP. The problem is that these bills would allow seizure *without* judicial oversight. Merely being accused would be enough.

      Yes, the judge in this case was overbroad in his decision, but that doesn't mean it will stand, or that it was a bad decision on the face of it. Although why anyone outside of US jurisdiction would bother to challenge the ruling is another question entirely.

  • by hellkyng (1920978) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:10PM (#38208364)

    I liked the days when people were afraid if they touched the computer too much it would explode, now they run crazy touching and deleting and legislating like coked out cats.

  • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:13PM (#38208392) Homepage

    So they are taking the domains and blacklisting them.
    Good luck for the next guy who buys these domains, what a way to ruin a business, buy a domain that is court ordered not to appear in any social networking or search.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It would be an interesting place to run a tor node or torrent site.

      It can't be infringing...my site is court ordered not to appear anywhere!

  • by brusk (135896) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:14PM (#38208402)
    Often, when a court does something like this it's because the real world analogy makes sense, but doesn't translate well into electronic contexts. Here it seems to be the opposite: the meatspace equivalent would be to not only shut down a business that is selling counterfeit goods, but also to order that the business be delisted from the Yellow Pages, at the expense of the phone book publisher. I'm confident that this judge would not have done that, but probably imagined that the company is responsible for its presence in search engine results the way it would be responsible for buying advertising space.
  • by cosm (1072588) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <3msoceht>> on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:15PM (#38208426)
    Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:

    WASHINGTON — To mark the official beginning of the online holiday shopping season, known as Cyber Monday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), the Department of Justice and the FBI Washington Field Office have seized 150 website domain names that were illegally selling and distributing counterfeit merchandise.

    source [ice.gov]

    Not only are there multiple alphabet soups working in collaboration on this, but taxpayer dollars, to use a talking point, tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies that a) people buying cheap counterfeits don't usually have money to buy the high dollar stuff or choose not to and b) many companies hide their profits overseas to avoid all the tax's imposed on them while simultaneously lobby congress to make import/export easier with the slave friggin labor used to make these fucking pointless articles of consumer whoredom. National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, ie, America production and creation capacity has been reduced to rubbish so we'll sue/block/censor anything that threatens the bank accounts. I'm not a 99%'er and all that jazz; this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out. There are of course many more problems than this, but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

    Boggles the mind on one hand, on the other hand, well, nothing new under the sun, eh?

    • by Obfuscant (592200) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:13PM (#38209080)

      tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies

      They are also being used to protect the people who don't realize that the "Guchi" handbag they are buying isn't a real Gucci. While I would agree that someone who buys a "Guchi" bag probably ought to know better, I'd say that someone who buys a counterfeit "Gucci" has no reason to expect it to be a counterfeit and thus an expectation that they are not being ripped off. Someone who is selling counterfeit goods is banking on the name of the product and not the quality, so while the victim does get something with a "Gucci" label, the quality is not what they paid extra for.

      this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out.

      I think your view is the one that isn't quite representative of the people. People who don't want to buy, e.g., Gucci, are still free to do so, and nobody is stopping them. Nobody is stopping someone from selling handbags that are quite nice but don't pretend to be Gucci. This is not an issue of stopping someone from selling a bag that looks like a Gucci but is clearly identified as not being one ("counterfeit" is not the same as "knock off".) I think most people are quite happy that someone in charge is trying to get rid of places and people that are selling counterfeit goods, and not just because those counterfeit goods harm the authentic manufacturer. They also harm the consumer, who has spent good money on a poor product, which means they aren't spending that money on anything else.

      but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

      You have it backwards. To do nothing about counterfeit goods is antithetical to what the US is based on. To do nothing is what would help the downfall. "Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with. "Here's a plot of land, homesteader, work hard and it is yours." Contrast that with "here's a community plot of land, occupant. Show up occasionally and you'll get a share of the food it produces."

      "Pretend your product is made by someone else who has built a reputation for quality and profit at the expense of them and the consumer" is more like the latter than the former. I have no problem with the legal system going after counterfeiters. None at all. They have no right to use the trademarks and names of reputable companies. When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.

  • Judge lets the world know he is a complete and utter idiot.

    sad part is that he will throw a hissy fit that everyone n the planet does not obey him, and he will not bother to get an education to make sure he does not sound like a complete tool again in the future.

  • Someone should introduce the Internet to this judge.

    Judge Smith, this is the Internet.

    Internet, this is Judge Smith.

    Now f*ck off.

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:24PM (#38208538)

    Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany.

    You dirty criminal pirate, how dare you link to the Site Which Shall Not Be Named?! Now they are going to sue /. too!

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_lizard13 (882373) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:33PM (#38208638)
    An American, thinking that the US = The World?

    What a surprise.
  • by efalk (935211) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:36PM (#38208670)
    This is why you never register your domain in the U.S. For maximum safety, host it overseas too. See http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2008/03/dont-register-or-host-your-domain-in-us.html [blogspot.com]
  • by forkfail (228161) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @06:37PM (#38208672)

    Here's the bit that gets to me:

    (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)

    How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.

  • by Pahroza (24427)

    Perhaps Slashdot readers/posters could assist with educating the judge on the finer technical details that make such a ruling impossible to comply with.

    If writing letters and mailing them sounds too daunting, some enterprising /,er might enlighten the judge by sending the letter to the HP printer he undoubtedly has in his office.

  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:00PM (#38208930) Homepage

    Does the court really have the authority to force "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites" to remove these domain names from their respective websites? It seems like too broad a target for an injunction, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

    • Does the court really have the authority to force "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites" to remove these domain names from their respective websites? It seems like too broad a target for an injunction, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

      Just to clarify, I am assuming such orders would not apply to companies outside the US. The question is whether or not the court has the authority to force all US-based search engines and all US-based social media websites to block the domains in question. That

  • Take that!





    The Fine Print: The following link is owned by whoever owns it. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:53PM (#38209468)

    Nonparties are never bound by court orders.

  • The summary and a number of the comments may be going a wee bit overboard while lambasting the order of the court. Any court has a certain jurisdiction, dependent on the constitutions, legislative acts, treaties, and case law within that jurisdiction. How a NY state judge rules doesn't matter to me in HI unless I enter or transact business with NY. This is understood by the NY judge, and is assumed when writing the decision.

    Likewise, I could sell material for the NSDAP on-line, and if a German federal judge

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @12:11AM (#38211056) Homepage

    I don't understand judicial power in these types of things.

    What power does a judge have to order a company to modify it's database? Unless that company is named as part of a lawsuit and loses the suit, what power does the judge have to compel any 3rd-party to do anything? Am I compelled by this ruling to delete any bookmarks I have? What if I run my own search engine?what

One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.

Working...