![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
French Court Orders Google to Stop Competing Ad Displays 630
charleste writes "NPR is reporting that a French court has ordered Google to stop displaying ads when users search for competitors (e.g. if you search for Louis Vuitton, no more ads for Dior). If this holds up, wouldn't this affect most business models for free web tools?" CNET also has details , and information about previous cases.
Slashdot editors ordered to stop posting dupes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slashdot editors ordered to stop posting dupes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Slashdot editors ordered to stop posting dupes (Score:5, Funny)
If you like, you can repeat the display with the duplicated results included.
And who (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And who (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And who (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you just weren't clear with what you were saying, but trademark law is not like EVERY other law. Take for example any criminal law. Whereas trademark matters are almost entirely civil matters (person A sues person B), criminal law is, well, criminal (Gov't/State vs. person B). Its a really big difference.
Re:And who (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, the government relies on private parties to enforce many of its laws ("exporting enforcement" in legal buzz ). This is (partly) why the US has a 'plaintiff friendly' court system that doesn't punish you for an unsuccessful suit (compare to the UK, where the losing party pays lawyer fees). The theory goes that by leaving it to private parties, those who a
Re:And who (Score:2)
It might be better for Google to just block the disputed domain altogether. It's easier.
Re:And who (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it makes more sense for any information company to block all french government IP's; If a bunch of idiots is going to continually harass and annoy you, don't deal with them.
Re:And who (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And who (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me about it. What I don't understand as an American company why don't Google just tell france to 'Fuck off.' Yahoo should have just told them the same thing. What are they going to do? Invade and shut down the server.
Re:And who (Score:4, Funny)
Well, the French would invade, but their army's visiting his aunt this weekend.
Then... (Score:4, Funny)
C'mon, you don't think Page and Brin could conquor France?
Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Google won a similar case in the US, so our competitors can
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:4, Insightful)
Company A starts selling a gadget that nobody knows about. It starts an expensive marketing campaign to show how it helps an average person in everyday life. People didn't know the product existed before, but are now very interested in the product.
Then they search for your creative, trademarked company name in google. Then they see an ad for company B (which cost company B $0.25). Company B is a factory outlet who has no marketing budget. The price from company B is half the price from company A because company A must recoup its marketing costs. Now the consumer buys from company B.
In this case it doesn't seem fair. Although the alternative (laws controlling advertising more) might be much worse.
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:5, Insightful)
What on earth does making informed decisions have to do with advertising? Advertising is the polar opposite of encouraging people to make informed decisions. The purpose of advertising is to encourage people to make UNINFORMED decisions.
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:2, Insightful)
Unethical != illegal.
Much like it is unethical to sleep with a subordinate (or superior) coworker, but it is not (or should not be) illegal.
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:3, Insightful)
Unethical actions are inappropriate until they result in someone else being harmed. At that point, they often become illegal, depending on the nature of the action, the harm, and whether the harmed person/company decides to press charges.
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this means that OSDL or someone could sue in France to have MS not pay for the 'Linux' search term. MS are currently doing that in Italy (look at the ads on the right, and maybe click on it to transfer a few cents from Microsoft to Google:-)
h [google.it]
Re:Self-policing (was: Re:And who) (Score:5, Insightful)
At how many tens of thousands of dollars per complaint?
a bit unethical.
Ethical or not, its a near-impossible problem. Google would have to maintain a massive database of every potential competitor for every possible keyword. And then, if I search for "Anderson", whose ads are forbidden from showing up? Does the user want Anderson Accounting? Anderson Computers? Anderson Farms? Anderson Law Firm? Anderson & Samuel Law Firm? Anderson Anderson Anderson & Sons Law firm? You can bet if the wrong law firm showed up, they'd all be lined up to sue.
Re:And who (Score:2, Insightful)
The company taking the orders. Remember this is a trademark issue and another company paid Google to serve up ads on a trademark that was not theirs.
This will end up as a legal phrase in the contract on the lines of "all the adwords that you are requesting are not trademarked by other companies in your industry". And I'm sure the fine folks at google wi
Re:And who (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And who (Score:5, Insightful)
In which world do you live?
I find this highly unreasonable. Right now, it is permissible for Company A to advertise its products on a huge billboard right in front of Company B's building. Are you suggesting this practice be banned too?
A magazine has an article about Microsoft security. On the adjoining page is a full page advertisement for Red Hat Linux. Should that practice be banned too? Because that's done in nearly every major magazine.
Extend this theory a little farther. A user enters a search for "Mustang", and gets back a link to a website. The user clicks the website, and sees information and advertising regarding both Mustangs and Chevrolets. Is that permissible?
A trademark is just that - a mark under which a company performs trade. A company that owns a trademark is only entitled to protection that guarantees that no other company sells similar products or services under the same trademark.
I fail to see how this protection entitles the obstruction of a competitive free market, just to protect some company who can't compete on other fronts.
Re:I don't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
As has already been explained [slashdot.org], that would be performing trade under another company's mark, which is exactly (and only) what trademark should prevent.
But you want it to be illegal for me to tell my friend about a Burger King or Subway around the corner if he asks me where the nearest McDonalds is.
Re:And who (Score:3, Interesting)
Company B is NOT using Company A in its advertisement. It is simply defining "location" by the terms. In your analogy B is putting the trademark within the ad and USING it.
A better analogy would be if B went to an advertising agency that handles ad placements on billboards, and says "put me next to as many Company A locations as possible". The ad agency searches their databases finds Company A's locations (which would be equiv to search terms in this realm) and places Com
Re:And who (Score:2)
That said - this is GOOGLE man. I daresay they could easily staff a small department of people who just sit there all day and GOOGLE for adwords before they're purchased and determine if they are trademarked / competitors / etc.
*THAT* said - we just proved it's a nonissue. They could only reasonably search so much, and any search so limited would likely only rely on trademarks/etc. If you're buying adwords with a trademarked name, it's your own problem - as well it shou
Re:And who (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy peasy.
Re:And who (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the point of the judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Jolyon
Re:Missing the point of the judgement (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing the point of the judgement (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point of the judgement (Score:2, Insightful)
More to the point, a trademark is not intended to prevent someone from not being able to describe a product as like Coke, but to prevent someone from packaging a product to look exactly like someone else's. Google's adw
Re:Missing the point of the judgement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Missing the point of the judgement (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Does this only apply if one is using www.google.fr?
2) What if you are a German citizen using www.google.com from Italy looking for local solutions? If the company you seek has an office in France, does that mean Google is barred from showing you Italian competitors?
No jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that the law will apply to Google's French subsidiary, Google.fr, rather than Google.com.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
While at first blush that might sound reasonable, it really doesn't have anything to do with jurisdiction.
For example, so long as Google's servers are hosted in the US, the only thing France could do is block their country from accessing Google's servers, and that isn't going to happen.
No, I think another well-informed reader hit it on the head: it would make sense to have a policy in place about competitors buying ad words that are the name of the competing company. But the only way that would work is to have the companies themselves police it (ie, do searches and see if someone else is potentially infringing with paid ads).
At that point it could be brought up in court, but it wouldn't need to involve Google at all; company A can just sue company B saying they're abusing copyrighted names yadda, yadda, yadda.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably, anyone in France typing in google.com, will get google.fr, thus allowing Google to implement regional policies.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Google has business contracts and other dealings with French citizens. It provides advertising services to French citizens. It is afforded the benefits of France through its business dealings.
That's the problem with operating a business on a global scale, you've suddenly opened the door to legal action almost anywhere. Similar problems arose when our economy shifted from largely intrastate to interstate.
Amazon... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amazon... (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue here, as pointed out in a comment from the previous existance of this story [slashdot.org] is that a company is specifically and intentionally making money off of someone else's specific trademark.
-Aaron
Re:Amazon... (Score:4, Interesting)
This will fly (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
Repeat! [slashdot.org]
Ruling only for LVMH (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't you be more comfortable elsewhere? (Score:5, Funny)
Give me a break! (Score:3, Interesting)
Louis Vuitton applauded the ruling, highlighting the danger that some sponsored search results tied to its name can promote counterfeits. "It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits," a company representative said in a statement via e-mail.
So Google was allowing other companies to bid on extremely vague search terms that display ads for companies related and somehow Vuitton thinks thats dangerous?
Give me a break. Make your product superior to the others and people will see the alternative and buy yours. I'm sorry if the "counterfeits" will end up beating you out. Maybe yours isn't worth 100x as much as theirs just because of your name.
Personally I don't even see the ads. They are there but they are in the corner of my eye. I have certainly never clicked on one and I don't know of anyone who has. Get over it.
Re:Give me a break! (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with generic search terms.
Re:Give me a break! (Score:2)
Just like the Yahoo! deal with the Nazi websites (Score:2, Interesting)
Geographical laws? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Geographical laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, yeah the French think they have the authority over everyone. The Quebecers are the same way. It was funny, them demanding that Pokemon produce French only versions, etc.
Re:Geographical laws? (Score:2)
And if I broke the law while in Canada, wouldn't the Canadian government claim jurisdiction? Of course. If the crime were serious enough, they would extradite me and prosecute me.
But because it's the US, it's ok for Canadians to say shitty things about us. Sorry, but your government does the same thing, as do most governments around the world.
Re:Geographical laws? (Score:2)
Re:Geographical laws? (Score:2)
This is idiotic (Score:3, Interesting)
*rubs temples*
I understand this is a "new" technology, and I appreciate how much catch up judges have to make effective rulings, but this indicates to me that they don't grasp how things work.
Maybe the court transcripts reveal more than the simple blurb. Perhaps there's simply more to this than the article suggests.
Re:This is idiotic (Score:3, Funny)
So from now on, if you sell 'ketchup', you should only buy ads for keyword searches such as "hang gliding".
Re:This is idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not about "competitors", it's about "trademarks". So it's very simple, the French court basically says ads (not searches) can't be targetted at trademarks of another company. So other luggage makers (and especially, those cloning Vuitton) can't pay for their ads to come up on a search for Vuitton. (Though they might turn up in the search results.)
Re:This is idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing ads that are for direct and relevant competitors when searching for a trademarked term makes web searches more useful. Ok, perhaps the trademark holder should always get the first result - but preventing me from seeing competitor's adds
Next thing you know they are going to prevent sites that are critical of a brand from buying search terms - i.e. say some site has important dirt on Nike regarding child labor allegations - is it going to be illegal for that site to buy an adword to show up when someone searches for Nike?
Lame.
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Google bans ads that criticize cruise ships (Score:3, Interesting)
Google bans ads that criticize cruise ships
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO - Online search engine leader Google has banned the ads of an environmental group protesting a major cruise line's sewage treatment methods, casting a spotlight on the editorial policies that control the popular Web site's lucrative marketing program.
Jim Ayers, Pacific Region director for Oceana, said from his Juneau home that he was shocked that Google would censor his group's ads based on corporate bias.
Washington D.C.-based Oceana said Google dropped the text-based ads displayed in shaded boxes along the right side of its Web page because they were critical of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.
http://juneauempire.com/stories/021304/sta_goog
Re:Google bans ads that criticize cruise ships (Score:3, Informative)
https://adwords.google.com/select/contentpolicy.h
"text advocating against any organization or person (public, private, or protected) is not permitted. "
I'm torn (Score:2)
Trademarks are in place to protect the consumer. Not the trademark holder. They prevent some fly-by-night company from stamping their stuff with a brandname and selling it. Levi's jeans are a brandname and cheap knockoffs can not carry the Levi's name.
Anything to reduce ads (Score:3, Funny)
Let Google remove their listing entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
Crow T. Trollbot
well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Google should pull out of France (Score:5, Interesting)
They should shut down google.fr (but keep control of the domain name so no one takes it over), and maybe even block French IPs from accessing the rest of Google.
dilutions of grandeur (Score:4, Informative)
The correct response (Score:3, Interesting)
"Since Google's normal ad service has been declared illegal in France, Google will cease such activities in France. The most technically feasible method of doing this is to make Google's service inaccessible from all IP netblocks assigned to the geographic area of France and any entities based in France who, were they to access Google, would do so under the aegis of French law. In addition we will no longer be accepting ad placement from companies where the transaction would be governed by French law."
Why is this different from...(realities of search) (Score:5, Interesting)
All Google is doing is recognizing that people use specific terms to represent generic actions. I may search for "Louis Vuitton" but really intend to look at luxury goods of a wide range of makers -- the trademark name is only being used to find hits in the category. As long as the ads don't pretend to offer something they don't (bait and switch), I would argue that Google is serving the purpose of search.
Re:Why is this different from...(realities of sear (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a true story. I posted this in another article, but I'll post it here for posterity: a few miles from where I live, there's a Ford (or Toyota, I can't remember which) dealership. Right next to it is a billboard advertising another Ford (again, or Toyota) dealership, with the text "Drive a few extra miles and save". It's the same exact type of thing as the situation with Google--this sign even plays on the fact that it's right nex
Re:Why is this different from...(realities of sear (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's suppose that you are Louis Vuitton. You've spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up your brand name. So now, someone is *PAYING* the sales person in that store to show customers products by Dior everytime they ask to see your products. If you were Louis Vuitton you would not be happy about that.
And to claim that people searching for 'Louis Vuitton' are merely doing a generic search for 'luxury good' is just plain stupid. If I search for 'Louis Vuitton' then I
Of Spiffs and serch techniques (Score:3, Informative)
This is no different than the practice of spiffs or push money to motivate the sales force to sell a particular product. I agree that it is not pleasant for the maker (and may be unethical toward the consumer), but paying the retailer for favored position, promotion, etc. is widespread.
If I search for 'Louis
Re:Why is this different from...(realities of sear (Score:3, Insightful)
You certainly would be unhappy. But it doesn't follow that the government should outlaw it just to make you happy.
And to claim that people searching for 'Louis Vuitton' are merely doing a generic search for 'luxury good' is just plain stupid. If I search for 'Louis Vuitton' then I only want to see search results for Louis Vuitton. To display anything else is unethical.
By your logic, then, all search engine advertisements are unethical. P
Re:Why is this different from...(realities of sear (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's suppose that you are Louis Vuitton. You've spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up your brand name. So now, someone is *PAYING* the sales person in that store to show customers products by Dior everytime they ask to see your products. If you were Louis Vuitton you would not be happy about that.
I walk into a restraunt and order a Coke. The waitress offers me a Pepsi. Coke has "spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up its brand name", and "someone is *PAYING*" the waitress to
everything competes with everything else (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that everyone has the same opportunities, due to lumpiness in the space time continuum, conspiracies run by the Illuminati, the oppression of the proletariat by evil oppressors etc, but for those opportunies each person [outside a survival-only situation] *does* have, there are -- for practical purposes -- an infinite number of possibilities, different ways for them to expend their life energy.
Buy an iPod? Hey, that sounds good! One day I might.
Join a monastery? Hm
sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Travesty (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is my main issue with this judgement.
I, as a consumer frequently SERACH FOR competitors of known brands. Often i am looking to see what the market is because i am dis-satisfied with the brand i am familiar with. Putting in search terms such as "geico competitors" you will not get any relevant listings.
I found the most effective means of finding other product offerings in a related market is by simply looking through the ad placements on google when searching simply for the brand name i recognize.
By ordering google to stop disaplying compeitotrs ads, they have effectivly denied me any solid capability to find out about what competing products there are in the marketplace, hence hindering compitition, and promoting monopolistic control.
It is a terrible day when trademark protection extends as far as information services. Will they make it illegal to place ads for comepting companies next to each other in newspapers? Will they make it illegal to place gap ads next to macys ads on Television?
This is a ridulous abuse of governance that only hinders the tax-paying public, and stifles economic growth through compitiion, as well as inovation amogst service providers.
Amazing. Whats next.... patents on 1's and 0's ??!!
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
deception in the link names. (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically companies are createing links with names that are incorrect in ads. I think thats where the problem is, if the name of your company is trademarked. I could put a "ford" link that links to chevy.com and that is very deceptive.
buyer beware.
I leave it to the courts to figure out if it illegal.
Targeting the wrong entity (Score:5, Insightful)
If Dior put a full-page ad in New York Times encouraging people to buy Dior instead of Louis Vuitton, does that mean that the New York Times is responsible for violating the trademark, or would it be Dior?
Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
2) Wait for people to overthrow said government
3) sell advertising indiscriminately, and profit.
fudge the french (Score:4, Insightful)
They especially don't have jurisdiction if Google does not have any legal business presence in France and they can't really do much to Google otherwise if Google were to refuse (provided Google has no future plans of opening up offices in France). The French don't censor the internet and since they don't have legal presence in France, it's a bit hard to fine them and expect payment. Plus the US courts are probably not going to help the French courts if Bush has anything to say about it, since I'm sure he holds a grudge against the French.
Man...all this reminds me of that one Halloween ep of the Simpsons. "AHAHAHAHA! No no no, in francias...OHOHOHOHOHOH"
Leaves CVS and Dunkin scratching their heads... (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is already doing this (Score:4, Informative)
So it seems google is complying with the court order using google.fr. It could be the case that nobody bought "Louis Vuitton" ads at google.fr, but that seems particularly unlikely as Louis Vuitton itself is a French company.
Re:It's the French (Score:2)
Re:It's the French (Score:2)
We have Mardi Gras, which I will put up against any other public drunkenness holiday around the world.
Beside which, who can really get hammered on wine? French people I guess.
Re:It's the French (Score:2)
And yes, you can get really hammered on wine, and beer, especially when it's cheaper than milk.
Re:It's the French (Score:3, Funny)
We have Mardi Gras, which I will put up against any other public drunkenness holiday around the world.
I'll see your Mardi Gras, and raise you one Hogmannay.
Hah! Trying to out puiblic-drunkeness the Scots! Tsk!
Re:It's the French (Score:3, Informative)
Re:French suck! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:what the ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what the ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not big on clicking on ads, but occasionally I have been enticed to click on a relevant AdWord ad, and actually found a company that fit my needs better.
Companies with str
Re:what the ... (Score:2, Informative)