Support NeoGAF

[Kolx]

On Wednesday, a Canadian company, Equustek Solutions Inc., convinced the Canadian Supreme Court to temporarily prevent Google from displaying worldwide the sites of a rival company, in a case that may prove key in deciding how global search engines apply their policies globally.

The matter started as a case between Equusteck and Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc. over a product that the latter had rebranded and sold as its own. Equustek requested that Google remove search results for the other company’s websites while the case between them was settled, and Google did so, but only on Google.ca, the Canadian version of the site. Equustek then sought an order against Google to prevent the search engine from displaying its rival’s sites worldwide. The Canadian Supreme Court agreed in a 7-2 decision.

Google originally set up its websites for different countries as a way of geofencing, or creating slightly different versions of the website to comply with slightly different national rules. Germany, for instance, has anti-hate laws that are reflected on Google.de, while Thailand’s blasphemy laws are taken into account on Google.co.th.

However, the judges who sided with Equustek ruled that blocking the search results on Google.ca only was ineffective. “The problem, in this case, is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders; its natural habitat is global,” the judges wrote.

In addition to the issues of geofencing, the case also raised concerns about freedom of expression, as Google’s defense claimed that the search engine has the right to decide which websites to index and deindex. (Indexing a site makes means that it is in Google’s organizational system, and shows up when you search it. Deindexed sites will not appear.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/06/30/the_canadian_supreme_court_orders_google_to_make_a_worldwide_change.html

 

[Syriel]

China can't wait to follow in Canada's footsteps.

Spoiler

No way this stands.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Yah, that's a bit much. They could tie them down in court for months and kill them financially. Can either the company or google appeal this?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

the article's being a little dishonest calling them a rival...they stole confidential material and were counterfeiting.

 

[The Faceless Master]

the article's being a little dishonest calling them a rival...they stole confidential material and were counterfeiting.

Were they found guilty of this?

 

[NYR]

Article is basically clickbait.

The other company stole the others IP and branded it as its own and was still in business. Google knew this hence the .ca ban but it wasn't enough. Judgement is 100% right.

 

[NYR]

Were they found guilty of this?

There was a suit between the companies and Equustek won. Datalink has defied the ruling and is still selling the networking equipment they developed via the trade secrets that was proven that they stole.

 

[Striek]

Article is basically clickbait.

The other company stole the others IP and branded it as its own and was still in business. Google knew this hence the .ca ban but it wasn't enough. Judgement is 100% right.

You don't know what clickbait is. The title is accurate, and the specifics of the case aren't important. Its the impact of the verdict in future cases, of one national jurisdiction to dictate worldwide access to information.

Thats why the EFF, Human Rights Watch etc. are mentioned in the article. This shit will have consequences that will impact everyone.

 

[Peccavi]

I feel like the suit should be against the company to take down their website, not Google to de-list a website. But I'm not a Canadian judge.

 

[Somnid]

Eagerly awaiting a day when blockchain-based software will take away the ability for governments to do this.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Article is basically clickbait.

The other company stole the others IP and branded it as its own and was still in business. Google knew this hence the .ca ban but it wasn't enough. Judgement is 100% right.

There was a suit between the companies and Equustek won. Datalink has defied the ruling and is still selling the networking equipment they developed via the trade secrets that was proven that they stole.

Well if one company won and the other is just ignoring court orders I can see why they would want to go to get the results blocked.

It's still problematic that a 3rd party is being targeted in this fashion.

 

[NYR]

You don't know what clickbait is. The title is accurate, and the specifics of the case aren't important.

Riiiiiight. Maybe you should google "Slate Clickbait" before making rash judgements on what people do and do not know.

http://www.somethingawful.com/news/slate-clickbait-headlines/

 

[Striek]

The fuck does that have to do with this headline?

 

[D4Danger]

the story is more about a court's ability to force Google to do something worldwide than one company ripping off another

here's a good quote a few links deep from the op story

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/...-international-removal-google-search-results/

Google will obviously abide the ruling, but as I noted last year, what happens if a Chinese court orders it to remove Taiwanese sites from the index? Or if an Iranian court orders it to remove gay and lesbian sites from the index? Since local content laws differ from country to country, there is a great likelihood of conflicts. That leaves two possible problematic outcomes: local courts deciding what others can access online or companies such as Google selectively deciding which rules they wish to follow. The Supreme Court of Canada did not address the broader implications of the decision, content to limit its reasoning to the need to address the harm being sustained by a Canadian company, the limited harm or burden to Google, and the ease with which potential conflicts could be addressed by adjusting the global takedown order. In doing so, it invites more global takedowns without requiring those seeking takedowns to identify potential conflicts or assess the implications in other countries.

 

[elrechazado]

Riiiiiight. Maybe you should google "Slate Clickbait" before making rash judgements on what people do and do not know.

http://www.somethingawful.com/news/slate-clickbait-headlines/

What are you talking about?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Has Google confirmed that they are going to abide? It's not entirely clear to me that they should

 

[Karsticles]

Article is basically clickbait.

The other company stole the others IP and branded it as its own and was still in business. Google knew this hence the .ca ban but it wasn't enough. Judgement is 100% right.

But why is it on Google to manage this conflict?

 

[Kieli]

How is this even enforceable. Couldn't Google just tell Canada to pound sand when they try to overreach their jurisdiction?

 

[Madness]

Has Google confirmed that they are going to abide? It's not entirely clear to me that they should

Doubtful they will as it sets a bad precedent. Google is being asked to delist a website they have nothing to do with, they did it for canada in which they are following law but also as a sign of good faith in that it was a counterfeit website, but worldwide is a bit much. Keep in mind, this is on Canadian law enforcement, not Google.

Canadian law sometimes gets it wrong. When the Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows launched early worldwide in some parts of BC. The BC Supreme Court granted an injunction that prevented legal purchasers of the book from talking about it let alone writing about it. Think about that. You would be held liable for telling your friend what you read in a book you purchased etc.

 

[legend166]

The internet has no borders but your jurisdiction certainly does.

 

[Somnid]

How is this even enforceable. Couldn't Google just tell Canada to pound sand when they try to overreach their jurisdiction?

Then Canada can fine them, perhaps infinitely until they submit or pull out. In many ways it's almost a blessing that companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google etc never gained a foothold in China because they can say "oh well" when they are censored, had any of them ever made a significant profit from China they would have to capitulate when they asked to censor the rest of the world because the losses of pulling out would be unacceptable. That's what makes it scary when countries ask for this. Imagine what Donald Fake News
"I want stronger libel laws" Trump could do with this.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Then Canada can fine them, perhaps infinitely until they submit or pull out. In many ways it's almost a blessing that companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google etc never gained a foothold in China because they can say "oh well" when they are censored, had any of them ever made a significant profit from China they would have to capitulate when they asked to censor the rest of the world because the losses of pulling out would be unacceptable. That's what makes it scary when countries ask for this. Imagine what Donald Fake News
"I want stronger libel laws" Trump could do with this.

Would love to see Google call their bluff on this one. "Seeya Canada, enjoy life without us" and then IP block all google products from Canadian IPs

 

[Gattsu25]

Has Google confirmed that they are going to abide? It's not entirely clear to me that they should

Yeah, this sets a horrible precedent.

 

[Bubble Metropolis]

Riiiiiight. Maybe you should google "Slate Clickbait" before making rash judgements on what people do and do not know.

http://www.somethingawful.com/news/slate-clickbait-headlines/

A government enforcing a global ban on search results against a 3rd party is the relevant point of the article, which the title reflects.

No one cares about these companies or their lawsuits.

 

[Earthbound64]

I feel like the suit should be against the company to take down their website, not Google to de-list a website.

This.