Google PageRank Suit Dismissed

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?

So they wanted Google to pay them because they sucked? If it was like that, then every sucky blog writer could sue them for cash.

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?

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.

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

The judge says he's open to the idea that if Google manually changed the pagerank to zero, then maybe it's defamation, which is a valid reason to bring a suit. It's equivalent to saying, out loud and deliberately, "You suck". He's saying that if they do it manually, that could be evidence for malice, which is a requirement for a defamation suit. (At least according to Wikipedia; IANAL.)

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

The judge says he's open to the idea that if Google manually changed the pagerank to zero, then maybe it's defamation, which is a valid reason to bring a suit. It's equivalent to saying, out loud and deliberately, "You suck".

I suppose I can see that from

Re:"You suck", says google

They'd have to show that Google is more than just saying "You suck". It's perfectly legal to express an opinion. Even if they can prove malice, their next step is to prove that the rank is a false statement of fact.

So the judge is saying that he's also no

Re:"You suck", says google

The judge says he's open to the idea that if Google manually changed the pagerank to zero, then maybe it's defamation, which is a valid reason to bring a suit. It's equivalent to saying, out loud and deliberately, "You suck". He's saying that if they do it

Re:"You suck", says google

That's correct. Kinderstart would further have to show that a pagerank is some kind of objective fact, not just an opinion. I detailed this in a response to a sister posting to yours, but the gist is that Kinderstart could conceivably demonstrate that a l

Re:"You suck", says google

Well... if google is saying:
"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

The judge says he's open to the idea that if Google manually changed the pagerank to zero, then maybe it's defamation, which is a valid reason to bring a suit. It's equivalent to saying, out loud and deliberately, "You suck". He's saying that if they do it

Re:Wtf?

Even then, though, why shouldn't they be free to manually change the ranking if they wanted to?

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

Re:Wtf?

Because they claim that Page Rank is an automated, objective measure of a site's relevance.

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 v

Re:Wtf?

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?

Yeah, while many companies do it, that's the risk you

Re:Wtf?

I don't know why, but there seems to be the mindset these days of some new "Right to make a profit". A bit offtopic, but you see the same kind of attitude from the **AA and the like. I understand that you need to make sound business decisions, and making a

Re:Wtf?

And why shouldn't the New York Times be free to accuse KinderStart of molesting little boys?

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?

No, that's wrong. They have the chance to ammend. There is no restriction about 'manual editting'.

FTA:

Fogel specifically dismissed some of the claims against Google "with leave to amend," meaning that KinderStart can modify and refile the complaint.

-snip-

"The decision suggests that, if properly alleged, Google may be defaming a whole class of Web sites sacked with a '0' PageRank," he wrote in a statement. "If plaintiffs show Google manually tampered with even a single Web site's PageRank, Google's entire claim of 'objectivity' of search results and rankings could collapse."

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?

The decision suggests that, if properly alleged, Google may be defaming a whole class of Web sites sacked with a '0' PageRank,

Isn't this something like MacDonalds sueing "Fine Cuisine Ratings Inc" because they're at the bottom of the charts?

Re:Wtf?

This only says that Google's defense may fail if the defendent can (this time) prove that Google manually modified anything.

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

Delisting BMW.de

Yes they did delist BMW.de and I believe it was done manually. It was also documented that it was done for attempting to game the system. bmw.de had hired a company to do the the site that engaged in some dubious SRO practices - they listed used cars ~200

Re:Wtf?

>So they wanted Google to pay them because they sucked? If it was like that, then every sucky blog writer could sue them for cash.

Next stop: sue Billboard for not fitting your music track in their top 40, sue Oprah for not reviewing your book.

Heck, I sh

Re:Wtf?

I should sue Slashdot for my account being banned from moderating.

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?

It actually is a victory when you think about it. They went from being completely unknown to being famous for sucking.

For s***s and giggles

"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

Would that be "For shits and googles"?

Thank you, thank you, I be here all ze veek.

Who do they think they are?

Maybe they don't realise that Google's engine is theirs. It belongs to them, they made it. There is no right to be on the list at all. If google wants to, they can put anybody anywhere they want. They could put a page to the bottom manually just for not liking someone if they wanted to. This would hurt their credibility, and thus themselves, so they won't. But they can if they want to.

If I was google, I would permanently ban them.

Re:Who do they think they are?

Google can deindex pages at will but they claim their Pagerank is computed automatically and if they were to modify it that could be construed as faking survey data in order to defame an opponent. You can skew your surveys in any way you like but you canno

Re:Who do they think they are?

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?

This is exactly what I suspected (though I don't care to visit the page). Google has a history of giving web sites that have no real content and artificially attempt to manipulate their ranking a 0 page rank. These places do nothing more than leech off of

Re:Who do they think they are?

If google wants to, they can put anybody anywhere they want.

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 d

Re:Who do they think they are?

Depends on whether a court would find them to have monopolistic control over a vital resource or not.

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 anyo

Re:Who do they think they are?

Maybe they don't realise that Google's engine is theirs. It belongs to them, they made it

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 i

Re:Who do they think they are?

Except that for the most part, the TAXPAYER paid for the copper and fiber to be installed in the first place, through granting of "easments" and tax breaks for "infrastructure improvements", not to mention the whole pesky group of regulations concerning "c

Re:Who do they think they are?

The telcos are common carriers. They gave up certain rights to gain certain advantages. An ISP is free to charge discriminatory rates and to refuse to offer service to some customers. Unless you can claim that they have a monopoly, Google, and most other c

Re:Who do they think they are?

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.

ISPs and Telcos play by a different set of rules. They've been granted a whole bunch of special privleges by t

Re:Who do they think they are?

I'm quite certain that the government isn't going to let another telco come along and install a whole second set

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

Re:Who do they think they are?

Yahoo, Microsoft, and Amazon have every right to do whatever they want with their product.

The telcos are slightly different, in that a lot of their infrastructure is on public land.

Google should make a selection

"Put people who are suing us at the bottom of the search list," and then enable it by default.

Stupidity rules!

This kind of thing is one of the main reasons the quality of life is going downhill in the US. Costs continue to go up with *no benefit* to anyone but the people who win stupid (nevermind frivolous) lawsuits. Oh, an dthe lawyers of course. When the mone

Reason?

The only way KinderStart's claims have a chance in hell is if they can claim that they were unfairly discriminated against, which I think is unlikely. However this possibility is why the judge let them re-file I suspect, contrary to the claims of other posters that "Google owns their search engine so they can do whatever they want with it". Even if you own something there are limitations under the law how you use it / run your establishment, and it is possible for Google to run afoul of them.

Re:Reason?

Since Google is a private, not Government entity, and not a monopoly, the only way I can see the plaintiff ever winning a suit is if Google hotlinks any search result for KinderStart to goat.cx ;-)

Google can make them not exist at ALL (on Google search) if

Re:Reason?

Can they? If organizations like the boyscouts of American can block gay members [hatecrime.org], why should anyone be able to force google's ranking or even inclusion of site site. Also, if you note the linked article, the press from the boyscouts incident has definately

If at first you don't succeed...

...sue, and sue again!

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...

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...

Re:If at first you don't succeed...

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...

That is an excellent point, and the reason I personally have

Strawman

> 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 a

Lawsuit advertising

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

Perhaps Google should blacklist them for attempting to manipulate their search results, albeit not through the usual means but rather the courts.

Damn, this is a scary.

I'm scared by the fact that the case made it this far.

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.

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.

...the company's revenue from advertisements through Google's AdSense syndication program fell by more than 80 percent...

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."

Thank you, Captain Generalization

How does one po-dunk website suddenly map to American's [sic] and American Liberal's [sic]?