Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Almighty Buck The Courts Your Rights Online News

France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words 470

Posted by timothy from the word-police-regroup dept.
ASN writes "Reuters reports that a French court barred Google from providing text ads with search results for trademarked terms, except those from the trademark owner (in this case, 'Bourse des vols,' potentially -- 'Microsoft,' 'Scientology' even 'Linux'). According to Reuters, 'If it was upheld on appeal and validated in other countries the decision could force the search services to pre-screen search terms for trademarks before letting advertisers use them.' Google was fined 75,000 euros for the practice, and would have to pay 1,500 euro for each further infraction while appeal is underway (which makes one wonder if Google is paying for this)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words More

France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words

Comments Filter:

  • Insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:20PM (#7254591)

    Trademarks? WHAT trademarks? This is ludicrous. If someone types in Ford, how is Google supposed to know if they're searching for Ford Motors, Gerald Ford, or informating on fording rivers? If I type in Windows, do they have to screen all ads not by Microsoft - even those for window cleaners?

    Insanity. Trademark laws were a good idea, but they're now even more insane than copyright laws. The courts seem to have forgotten that trademarks have a limited scope based on area of business and geographical area.

    • There not expected to, they just can't return any results for the trademarked versions of the word. Why the trademark holder would want this is unknown.
      • The way I read it is that the company doesn't want competitors to use the company trademark in their ad or webpage. For example: AMD could make an ad or webpage that says "AMD Athlon 128 tm processors are 38% more powerful than Intel Pentium 11 tm processors" which would show up on a Google search for "Pentium 11" but, when clicked, would direct a person to the AMD website. However, the way Google works, the ad would be search result 298, past the reviews and definately past the company websites. So, I d
      • There not expected to, they just can't return any results for the trademarked versions of the word.

        Not quite, They just can't return ADVERTISING results with the trademark. For example, if I search for Linux, they can't return an advertised link that says something like "Linux Trounces Microsoft for TCO." This only applies to the paid advertising links that are returned at the top of the search or in the sidebar.

        • Too bad for Wallside Windows, screw Pella as well.

          Perhaps they should temper that ruling with another ruling that says tradmarks can only be proper nouns, and may not be any other words.
      • My local grocery store (Kroger) includes an advertising discount coupon for a competitor when certain items are purchased. I am sure that in the USA, if it were to become illegal on the internet, a number of companies would have to stop the coupons for competitors. I wonder if this is also common practice in France and grocery stores or other businesses.
    • Exactly, trademarks are only valid in a certain context. Otherwise there wouldn't be these unix diapers or whatever it was ;-)
    • Furthermore, Google searches are case-insensitive, which makes it even more ambiguous. Now, I would like if I could do a case-sensitive search on request, especially for individual terms. "iTMS" is not "ITMS" when I'm looking for the former.

    • Re:Insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by snarkh ( 118018 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:30PM (#7254657)
      The ads mentioned are the ads Google itself places on its page. They are the not-so-little text links you see above the search results.

      The idea is that Google should not allow other interested parties to use copyrighted expressions. E.g., Ford Motors can by a text link for Toyota Corolla and direct them to Ford Focus.

      Whether it makes sense, I am not quite sure, but it is not a clearly ridiculous idea

      • Yeah, I understand, and that's what makes it rediculous. How do you determine who the trademark holder(s) are when I type in Ford? Suppose there's a guy named Ford who runs a small but growing car dealership in Nowhereland called "Ford's Cars", and wants to raise awareness of his company. So he buys a text ad for the keyword "Ford"... But he also sells only Toyota vehicles. (Or a car salesman named "Toyota" who sells only Fords)

        This ruling would seem to ban him from doing this. Even though he, I believe,

        • Re:Insanity! (Score:3, Informative)

          by brianosaurus ( 48471 )
          Actually if there was a guy named "Ford" who opened a Toyota dealership named "Ford's Cars", that would very likely be a trademark infringement and would be banned by trademark law. Since in your example Ford (the guy) and Ford (the big company) are both in the same business, naming his car dealership "Ford" would most likely be found to be delibreately misleading.

          On the other hand, if someone named "Bob" opened up a Ford dealership named "Bobs Totally-Awesome Car World", I can see no reason that he shoul

        • Re:Insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @01:11PM (#7254920) Homepage
          How do you determine who the trademark holder(s) are when I type in Ford?

          In short, you don't. You simply ask the clients to whome you sell ads to indemnify you for all damages caused by their selection of search keywords. Or you charge all clients a little more to compensate for the risk.
          • In short, you don't. You simply ask the clients to whome you sell ads to indemnify you for all damages caused by their selection of search keywords.

            Exactly. And you have to pull the ads if someone makes a complaint until the dispute is settled.

      • Good explanation. It makes you think though that the dispute would then be between Ford and Toyota, not Toyota and the medium that Ford used to place the questionable ad.

        This court decision is going to force Google into becoming a watchdog.

        • As the article mentions, France turned Yahoo into a watchdog over auctions a few years ago. Fortunately Tim Koogle was acquitted of his "war crimes".
      • You can't copyright names. Getting copyright and trademark confused just, well, confuses the issue.

        If I have a site critizing, say, Verizon, I ought to be able to advertise that site using the name in a descriptive way. That's legal under normal fair use, and adding "on the internet" shouldn't change that.
      • _Trademark_, not copyright. They are very, very different and, in the US at least, trademark is much, much weaker. I doubt that such a case would get far here.

    • Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Sunday October 19, 2003 @01:22PM (#7254981)
      If someone types in Ford, how is Google supposed to know if they're searching for Ford Motors, Gerald Ford, or informating on fording rivers

      Well, that's the French government for you - they're always passing laws regulating business without thinking through the consequences. For example, they thought limiting the work week to 35 hours would force more jobs to be created. And it would - if all workers were interchangeable. Unfortunately, in the real would (which no French government official has ever worked in) they're not. Or the laws that make it very difficult to fire a worker - they thought that would cut unemployment too. Only they didn't realize that part of the risk of hiring a worker is that he is incompetent or lazy - by making it so difficult to fire, they magnified that risk, and so companies were reluctant to hire!

      Basically, until the French government keeps its bungling hands out of regulating things it doesn't understand, French unemployment will never drop into the single digits, and their economy will never pull out of recession.

    • Re:Insanity! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
      No, they know exactly what they're doing. And sabotaging major American corporations is just considered good politics in Europe nowadays. Of course, the fact that they're trying to force French law on a business based in a foreign country is the real crux of the matter. Google should tell the to have a real nice day, and turn the whole thing over to the State Department. If they want to make this into an international pissing contest, fine. Hey, if the French don't like Google, let them pull a China on
    • Trademark laws aren't insane. It's this court's ruling that's nuts. Why should Google be any more responsible for filtering user queries through a Magic Trademark Filter than your local flesh-and-blood librarian? If I go to my library and ask for references to "markets for rutabagas", should this ruling compel the librarian to only show me references to the company that registered "markets for rutabagas" as a trademark?

      Just another reason why I shoulda gone to law school

  • Screw them. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:20PM (#7254596) Homepage Journal

    Google should dump Google.fr [google.fr] and continue doing what they're doing. That'll leave the French courts with no one to sue nationally and will be another nail in the coffin for French xenophobia.
    • I think this is a fair idea. If France doesn't like Google's service then Google should just leave France.

    • Re:Screw them. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What french xenophobia has to do with this ?

      Would you agree about M$ paying for false *BSD ads on Google linking to their sites ? This ruling is all about that.
      • This case has nothing to do with fraud.

        This case has to do with people restricting which words you choose to use in your advertisements. If there is some useful (non-fraudulent) reason for you to mention someone else by trademark then that should be allowed as simple freedom of speech.

        Sun should be able to drag Microsoft's name through the mud in their commercials so long as Sun doesn't engage in fraud.
    • Google should dump Google.fr and continue doing what they're doing. That'll leave the French courts with no one to sue nationally and will be another nail in the coffin for French xenophobia.

      Or simply move physical hosting of their .fr site to Switzerland. What're the French government going to do, put up a Maginot Firewall to keep it out?
    • not a bad idea if it proves to be too costly for google to make potential advertisers certify no trademark infringement.

      however keep in mind that trademark law is a *consumer protection* system. it's not made to protect giant corporations (though that's often how it's perceived): the point is to protect YOU, the little guy from companies who lie.

      that way if you go into a "Ford Auto Dealership" and walk out with a "Ford F150 Truck," you know exactly who you are dealing with. Otherwise everyone could be se

  • "A, an, the?" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NineNine ( 235196 )
    So then what's left to Google, if not copyrighted words? That's insane.

  • Which Trademark Owner? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr@42.osu@edu> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:22PM (#7254606)
    A trademark is an exclusive right to use a name, phrase or logo with regards to a specific market. It is not entirely impossible for two different companies to have the same trademark--remember the nissan.com debacle? The original owner of the nissan.com site (not the car manufacturer) had a trademark on the name "Nissan" and got there first. Another (more prominent) company with a trademark on "Nissan" sued to get the domain and won. However, the original owner still runs a business with the name "Nissan".

    • Re:Which Trademark Owner? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:44PM (#7254754)
      More than that, it's perfectly legitimate for someone who is not the trademark holder to us that trademark in their advertising.

      "Well sell cars from a particular manufacturer from a particular country, but we can't tell you which of either."

      Please come in and buy one."

      This isn't about protecting trademarks, this is about simply being able to advertise what you sell. Advertising that I sell Serta mattresses doesn't in any way delute the trademark.

      KFG
      • "This isn't about protecting trademarks, this is about simply being able to advertise what you sell. Advertising that I sell Serta mattresses doesn't in any way delute the trademark."

        Would it be possible for the copyright holder to prohibit you from using Google Ads? I can't think of a reason why they would offhand.....but lets say for some reason M$ or someone didn't want another company to sell their product, could they tell Google to turn the ads from that company off?

      • More than that, it's also perfectly legitimate for someone who is not the trademark holder to use the trademark for reviews or orther technical articles about the product.

        This is saying that I cannot put up a website talking about how much Ford Sucks, how unhealthy McDonalds is, and then advertise it on Google.

        So much for free speach.
        • > More than that, it's also perfectly legitimate
          > for someone who is not the trademark holder to
          > use the trademark for reviews or orther
          > technical articles about the product.

          Or even in advertising for a competing product. It is entirely legal in the US for Ford to run ads saying "Fords are better than Toyotas!".

          > So much for free speech.

          The case was in _France_.
      • Advertising that I sell Serta mattresses doesn't in any way delute the trademark.

        And advertising that you sell mattresses that you think are better than Serta mattresses doesn't dilute the trademark either.

        Welcome to the dark ages of information, pretty soon you will need permission to speak.

    • A trademark is an exclusive right to use a name, phrase or logo with regards to a specific market. It is not entirely impossible for two different companies to have the same trademark?

      The answer is ANY trademark owner. For example, companies selling Ford automobiles, companies selling biographies of Gerald Ford, and companies such as "Ford Brand Baked Beans" would be able to buy ads on Google's "Ford" search results. However, any company that competes with a company with a trademark on "Ford" would not

  • These ads didn't register to get displayed when searching for Bourse des vols but when search for either bourse or vols!
  • Text ads
  • Umbrello [sourceforge.net] even brags about this:

    "Umbrello Competes with Commercial Alternatives 14/10/2003

    Poseidon and at least one other company have bought Umbrello as AdWords on Google. We would like to thank these companies for acknowledging that our Free Software competes with their proprietary and commercial offerings."
  • ...because the word "Euro" is trademarked in the US [uspto.gov].
  • (which makes one wonder if Google is paying for this [google.fr]).

    Reading the article, it seems to me that advertisers can't advertise on trademarked phrases like "bourse des vols" -- but they could still advertise on "bourse" and "vols" separately. And all the ads could have originated that way.

    If so all Google would need to do was check from each advertiser that the phrase they're "buying" isn't the trademark of a competing product. (eg, someone buying "Ford" to advertise a biography of Gerald Ford needn't worry

    • Shouldn't the onus be on the Trademark holder to defend their trademark? e.g. if Apple records doesn't like Apple computer putting up the iPod site when people search for "Apple" then Google would be required to say "this is too close for us to call. We're taking out the text ad until we see a written agreement from both parties"

      On the other hand, if searching for "Ford" brings up a Chevrolet text ad, big deal... as long as Ford doesn't say "Hey Google, that's our trademark and we don't want it used tha

  • Trademark law only provides for commercial use of a particular word or phrase in the same market category. It is not trademark infringement to use a trademarked word or phrase which is not in competition with the original.

    This is a matter of explicit law. Restricting the use of even commercial speech by the inaccurate interpretation of trademark is in opposition to the guarantees of the First Amendment.
  • Trademark owner only? That would certainly seem to invalidate ads by organizations which have a license to use the trademark (so, then, my franchise McDonald's couldn't have a text ad on Google [given that this logic gets accepted by courts in the US] because all I do is license the marks, I don't own them). Even if the search phrase is trademarked, and the text ad(s) in question aren't using the mark legally, the responsibility for the Ad should be on the shoulders of the ad-maker, not the agent who displa

  • Did you read the article before yelling insult ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:38PM (#7254721)
    First a trademark has to be actively defended or you loose it. So the firm holding the trademark "bourse des vols" defended it being used by competitor. Just like any US yahoo firm would have defended their term used by competitor in anadvertising with "ford" in it for example.

    Second what is with all this xenophobic spout I see thrown at the french ? First and formore US judge and politics are as able to make BIIIG way mistake as french one (COPA, DMCA, Patriot act and I pass many other there).

    Second if you really do not wish to have any relationship with french , then buy ntohing from them, sell them nothing, do not even speak on them, ignroe them completly. Throwing xenophobic insult at them only show how "petty" and "arrogant" you are. Do really US peopel feel so insucre that they have to throw insult each possible moment at european in general and french in particular ? Tolerance serems a vain word in some people mouth [or writing].



    So Please hold off the insult and discuss whether the trademark law are bad or not, or whether the judge really outstepped its power. Remmember, he did not judge whether internet was an althogether different medium, he did judge it as it was one of the old break and mortar medium [paper], and in France you DO NOT HAVE the right to use your competitor trade mark. (or at least so I remmember. This is why we do not have comparative publicity olike in US/UK).

    • Ok, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but, not allowing the use of trademarks by competitors is really a bad idea. The US is wrong about USA PATRIOT and wrong to flaunt the UN, but, France is really wrong about this.

      So there. Now we have two sets of stupid leaders.
    • Actively defending the trademark would be served by suing the organizations which used the trademark in an infringing fashion. Google isn't doing that here; if anyone is, it would be those who created the text ads. Google is not responsible for the infringement, and that makes the ruling untenable.
    • Did you apply your brain before whining about the insult?

      Suppose Company A owns and registers a trademark on their product named MegaSuperItem. If company B runs an advertisement saying "ImprovedNiftyItem -- twice as good as MegaSuperItem," who is traditionally at fault? I believe that Company B should be held liable, not the media that published the advertisement.

      There is also, as many other people have commented, the fact that trademarks pertain to a specific market or field. The Internet encompasses

  • This is about AdWords, not search results (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:39PM (#7254728) Homepage
    This isn't about Google's search results. This is about AdWords, which is specifically advertising.

    France regulates advertising quite differently from other expression. TV commercials require advance approval. Sexy ads are fine. (Although, since 2001, sexual domination and violence in ads has been restricted.) But there are many other restrictions. If an advertiser claims their product is "better", they have to be able to prove it in court or face criminal penalties. Here's the official FAQ on advertising in France. [bvp.org]

    Under US law, AdWords are clearly "commercial speech" when they lead to a product, The FTC could regulate them.

    Google can live with this; they just need to require AdWords purchasers to certify that they're not infringing a trademark.

    • Ok, but who is lible in France for this sort of thing? Lets say I run Adam Inc, which contracts with Bob's House of Advertising, to make a 30 second commercial spot run on CNN.

      Now my commercial claims that my product (the super-duper wizbang thingamajigger) is better than a competing product made by Dave Inc.

      Dave Inc sues over this advertisement. Who can they sue? Adam Inc? Bob's House of Advertising, or CNN?

      Logicaly the target would be Adam Inc or Bob's House of Advertising or both... it would seem

  • It isn't even technically feasible (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Valar ( 167606 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:42PM (#7254741)
    How is google supposed to know if a word is trademarked? Does France have some kind of list of all registered trademarks, and what kind of product or company they specifically refer to availible electronically? Or even on paper? Even if such a list were availible, how is google supposed to know whether I was searching for information pertaining to a product with a trademarked name or just a normal combination of words? Perhaps I was slightly off in my terminology, and happened to enter a trademarked phrase as opposed to what I was actually looking for (because I didn't know exactly what it was called)? I fear that the simpliest thing for google to do at this point is to start running banner ads. Otherwise, it is likely that some daft frenchmen are going to put them under, one search at a time.
    • It's not like they are being asked to censor the search results. They are being asked to be more prudent with their advertisments. There are two things that google can do:

      (a) create legal verbage that you have to clock "I am not violating anyones trademark" when you submit an AdWord;

      (b) when an adword is submitted, have your staff do a quick "check" to see if it is not an obvious violation of trademark (ie, allowing a site about presidents but not GM to put up adword for "Ford")

      By taking proactive
  • Just wait till MS declares that they have a trademark on the letter 'e' from their Internet Explorer logo, and demand $0.05 everytime someone uses it.

    This sentence alone would cost me $0.25

  • I would think that the competitor buying the words should be at fault.

    • It might not even be a competitor. For example, Fry's in the US sells Microsoft Windows. They're entirely within their rights to use the term "Microsoft Windows" in their ads to identify what they're selling, even though they don't hold the trademark on "Microsoft Windows". Buying a text ad keyed on that term would, IMHO, fall well within that same allowance.

  • I don't know anything about French law or what the basis for this could be, but what is the problem with providing ads along with search results? Is it some anti-competitive thing? Google by far has the least intrusive ad scheme for a generic search engine.

    More importantly, how will this effect Froogle? A generic search engine provide by Google tuned for finding stuff to buy. How does French law work with this?
  • Google should just ignore the French court decision, seeing as how they are not bound by French law, not having an operating presence except over the Internet, in France.

    What are they going to do about it?

  • Cutting of your nose to spite your face (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thinmac ( 98095 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @01:01PM (#7254859) Homepage
    This seems like a bad idea, at least in some cases, for the trademark holder. There are many cases where you *want* other companies to have access to your trademarks for advertising purposes.

    As an example, I recently bought a Kawasaki motorcycle. It's a great bike, but there are some extra things I want, and so I went to google and searched for Kawasaki aftermarket parts. Now, every one of the advertisers was using the Kawasaki name, but without a healthy aftermarket presence, Kawasaki would sell a heck of a lot less of their product -- people are a whole lot more willing to buy a motorcycle if they know they can get performance parts for the bike without doing a whole lot of digging.

    Even more simply, what if someone is using their name to say that their company is retailing the products of the trademark holder? Then they'd be cutting into their own visibility in the market place, and lowering their own sales.

    It seems to me that this is not the most intellegent move on the part of the trademark holder. If you protect your trademark so passionately that you hurt your own product sales, what the hell was the trademark for in the first place?
  • I think the problem here is that the advertiser is using a trademarked word (not belonging to them) in there ad taken out on Google. The court is saying that Google can not let someone take out an add that uses another parties trademarked work.

    An example would be SCO placing an add with Google that included "Red Hat" "IBM" "Linux" and other Linux related trademarks.

    An ad like this would come up when a user Google for any car company. In a cense this is using someone else's trademark to create confusion.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If Verisign shows your competitors ads when someone mistypes your domain name it's bad. If Google shows your competitors ads when someone searches for your company's name, it's supposed to be good?

      Please prove that I'm wrong saying this.

  • If I recall properly the US had ruled that pop-up ad services like Gator could use their programs to put up an advertisement for another company (say like fedex when you went to UPS) when you went to a company's web-site. Here you have a search engine, whose very idea is to provide the consumer with various places to go regarding various subjects and they can't have advertisements on their own pages.

    By god, because Google's Text Ads are so pervasive and they serve so much to dillute a trademark, the same p
  • Is this ruling saying that Safeway, for example, cannot buy and ad saying "Safeway sells Starbucks Coffee" or is it it merely saying that they can't have link text of just "Starbucks Coffee" linking to their site?

    Its subtle, but I can see where the latter could be a trademark infringment. It is taking advantage of the brand recognition, and by only having the name could imply that its a link to Starbucks. That's kind of analogous to opening up a 12-pack labelled Coca-cola and finding 12 cans of Pepsi ins
  • Balkanization, here we come. In this case I hope this is just for France. I think this is a stupid ruling.

    Instead of stopping other ads for the trade maked word, they should add another box right above it reserved for trademark holders. Otherwise this amounts to forcing google to reserve advertising space for the trademark holder.

    If they are forced to comply, Google should keep with their clear and well labeled design and do something like this for their right side...

    Trademark Holders

    (fr)[ French C

  • What about situations where "competitors" are owned by the same company? For instance, MTV and VH1 are both Viacom, and Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, etc. are all owned by GM. Can GM buy an ad under the term "Pontiac" to sell a Saab?
  • Some country somewhere (like Tuvalu or Tokelau) ought to start their own trademark registry; and for $20 or so you could buy one that applies there. Ford Motors could trademark Infiniti in Tuvalu and then buy a Google keyword for it, and have a Ford ad pop up. If the French protest, well, Ford does hold a valid trademark, and the internet is international.
  • In other news Slashdot fined $2000 per link click on a news article about Google that caused Google to be fined 1500 euroes with each search.

  • I have some sympathy for the ruling... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by greppling ( 601175 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @02:30PM (#7255394)
    ...as I recently discoverd that when one googles for the free software project I am maintaining, one gets a sponsored link for an equivalent commercial program. Now, I don't earn anything anyway with my project, so I don't care so much, but still it feels a little odd.
  • Trademarks are there to identify goods and services uniquely, not to give some company a monopoly on the use of that word.

    As long as they don't misrepresent goods as being identified by the trademark, it is the intent and the purpose of trademarks that anybody can use the trademark to refer to all aspects of a product, good and bad.

    So, if I have had a bad experience with "Product X", I should be able to use the trademarked term "Product X" in public statements saying "I didn't like Product X, buy Product

  • This might be down-modded by Google-fanboys, but it needs to be said: Google has had something like this coming.

    As a customer both of Google AdSense [google.com] and Google AdWords [google.com], I have been victim of many of Google's own anti-competitive and censorship policies.

    First, if your webpage contains keywords like "war" or "suicide" (as any news page will sometimes) Google will not serve your site paying ads but will serve you Public Service Announcements (PSAs) about saving Gorillas and stuff like that. By Google's own

  • Block France (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @02:58PM (#7255556) Homepage Journal
    Google has a monopoly over good search engines (i.e. google is the only search that anyone wants to use). They should block France until the French Government changes their opinion on this ruling. They'll do this because everyone will complain that they can't use google, and google will tell them that google's no longer profitable in France, and that they can't afford to do business there with the new laws. That should result in some change fairly quickly :)

  • Sue those who placed the ad, not the media (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @03:12PM (#7255642)
    If a company has a problem with another company using their trademark for advertising, they should confront the company who bought the ad, not the media who carried it. Requiring Google to proactively compare every word against trademarks is ridiculous, and is a bad precedent that could be extended to cripple other forms of media.

  • If I were google.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dentar ( 6540 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @03:27PM (#7255720) Homepage Journal
    I would respond to this censorship with further censorship.. by BANNING ALL FRENCH IP ADDRESSES!
    • how comes everyone proposes a french ban from Google when a french court decides something stupid. Did people propose to ban USA when Google was forced to remove some search results by the DMCA ?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close