Google, Eric Schmidt Convicted of Defamation Because of 'Suggestions' in Search

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like the court detected deep pockets and issued a finding accordingly. 5K euros in court costs for a lawsuit that would be declared spurious in any reputable court?
 
well it can be changed - not all people has a wonderful names because it is really up to your ancestors if they chooses a unique names that mean to bad thing to other people or other countries.
 
France has just demonstrated that their legal system makes about as much sense as the average conservative politician...I don't even think Iran would be so stupid as to issue this kind of crap from a court of law.
 
The ruling makes no sense, those are suggested search terms, not statements. I can legally suggest anything I want, as a matter of opinion, which is protected.
 
[citation][nom]braneman[/nom]since you have to type the starts of these words to get them, the offense is largely self committed. its like suing a chainsaw company because you decided to cut your arm off.[/citation]

Or suing a home owner because you got injured braking into their home.

Oh wait...
 
Huh, I find myself in an almost identical position as this guy. After just googling my last name, I discovered that a man with the same last name was recently convicted for sexually abusing a child and creating child pornography.

How quaint. Can I sue too? JK google, I love you guys.

Seriously though, you better settle this one out of court or I'll go to town on you guys.
 
"pay symbolic damages of one euro plus €5,000 in legal fees"

The real crime is the lawyers making money off shit like this. Bottom feeding scum. Creating absolutely 0 goods or services and just picking sides in an argument where the outcome is that they always win.

The guy gets 1/5000 of what the lawyers get. Off with their heads!
 
How guys, this is NOT the French government sensoring google, but a court order. In France, as in most Western countries, the court is acting independent from the state.
What we have here is that the search results "suggest" that the guy is guilty, but under French law, everybody is not guilty until proven otherwise.
But then he should sew most newspapers also.
 
Obviously, some people don't seem to understand that not all legal systems are US-like.
In France, the court system doesn't require lawyers - however, for a court, you need to gather a judge, a procuror, a typist,and both sides may bring a lawyer if they so desire.
This has a cost.
In order to prevent trivial trials, costs are paid for by the parties - the loser pays. However, compared with the US system where lawyers can bill whatever sum they want, in France, these costs are fixed by the hour, by the number of persons forced to stop their normal activity, etc. And the loser pays.

So, now we have this guy; he is a satanist and child rapist - at the very least, he's been judged as such, BUT there still is an appeal available to him, that he took: so, he's NOT YET an irrevocably condemned satanist child rapist.

The fact is, in France, Google represents 90% of all search results, and more than a third of the population has Internet access. Internet is thus a media like any other, and Google a 'publication' with some clout, and Google associates the guy's name wit 'satanist'.

Google designed the incriminated algorithm.

Google displays the results of said algorithm.

Google has control of said displays, as it's been shown that they can influence it in other cases in other countries.

As such, considering the algorithm labels the guy as a satanist, Google is responsible for the guy being labeled a satanist, however he hasn't gone through all recourses, so he hasn't been fully convicted.

It is, technically (in all senses of the term), slander - so, Google is guilty.

It's also ridiculous, so Google's fine, damages, etc. is one Euro.

But, the Law is the Law, the loser pays court fees (that are tightly controlled) - and must pays the fees for the court and the lawyers - 5000 Euros.

Now, compare with the US system, where someone can sue someone else for looking at them oddly and get USD 50 000. And the lawyers add their bills (around USD 30 000 in such cases) on top.

Which is sanest?
 
[citation][nom]plznote[/nom]Lolz 1 euro[/citation]
Soon to be equivilant to 10 dollars. lol. jk.

This stuff is ridiculous. Google should not be accountable.
 
Last night i´ve visited Wired´s web page for the first time, and there i´ve found an article called 'Google Bomb' an Enemy.

Here´s the link to WIRED´s article: http://howto.wired.com/wiki/'Google_Bomb'_an_Enemy

Google bombing involves manipulating search engines' contextual search methodologies to cause a certain search phrase to point to an unexpected page, usually for comedic or satirical purposes. A recent example of a Google bomb happened in January 2008, when the search phrase "dangerous cult" returned the Chuch of Scientology home page as the top search result.
Click to expand...

I supposse that this french guy must have an enemy that target´s him with Google bombing, and the sad thing is that Mr. Schmidt is the one convicted by this fellony.

I have an request to Tom´s Hardware staff. Please report to Google´s representatives about this, so they can made further investigations and perhaps clean up theirs and Mr. Schmidt´s name.

 
Its true....with such ability comes responsibility and its not the fault of some fella getting fingered as a crook etc that people don't read past the first headline. Some things just ain't right. Let em have it he made a point.
 
[citation][nom]Strider-Hiryu_79[/nom]Can those porn actresses sue too?[/citation]
Probably not, if I started to type "Sasha Grey sl...."
and it auto-completes to "slut"
Well...
She doesn't have much of a legal case does she, she is and everyone knows it

Same as this guy, i'm sure that 1 Euro award will go very far buying protection in prison from all the people who will want to kill him. Pedophiles going into gen-pop may as well be the death sentence.
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]...and Google associates the guy's name wit 'satanist'.Google designed the incriminated algorithm...[/citation]

"google's algorithm" only displays what its users have already typed into its search bar.

This would be the same as clipping lines from a newspaper, putting them into a hat and then pulling out a results that were similar to what you were looking for. It might be your hat and your hand, but they are not your words or your problem. The most google can be ASKED to do is to delete said connection (not to say it will not appear again, from more people searching for it). If you agree with/want censorship.. move to china.

That said, this is most likely all about publicity. This could have been settled out of court and I think both the french court and the man knew this. The man most likely didnt want himself to be known as an offender until he is proven guilty?)
 
[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]and how much did this entire escapade costs the tax payers for all the media and courts..[/citation]
Err, nothing?
Google has been ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro plus €5,000 in legal fees
Click to expand...
Costs were 5000 Euros, it was paid for by Google, and it was in France.
Troll much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom