federal judge orders Google to de-index sites

[parttimepoker]

Federal judge orders Google, Facebook to "de-index" 700 domain names - Yahoo! News

interesting twist.

[Shay]

Google had set themselves up for protection against listing counterfeit goods when they moved to require UPC codes or other select unique identifiers as a condition of being listed in the US targeted "product search" results - or so they claimed.

That aside, it is huge that search engines are being ordered to remove results from their index. I'm a bit torn about what I think on this.

Here's the full judgment - CHANEL, INC. V. THE PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A” AND DOES 1-1000

[Michael Martinez]

And people should really read the court document. A lot of folks in the SEO community who don't bother to check their facts have been up in arms about this. The sites in question were CLEARLY developed to sell counterfeit goods. Many of them even used the word "replica" in their domain names. Chanel had no business relationship with them whatsoever.

This court decision doesn't threaten typical Websites with takedown actions. A great deal of nonsense is being published about this decision.

[parttimepoker]

Regardless of the scope, it's an interesting twist in the efforts of the US to exert influence over / apply US law to the internet.

[Ridge]

I read the actual ruling and I agree this makes more sense once you read it. That being said, what worries me is this.

In the US we have thousands of older appointed for life old judges who don't has a ton of knowledge about the internet, internet commerce, etc. They may have a vague reference to this case and making snap rulings that cause a lot of grief to legit business, affiliate companies, etc.

Trust me as speaking to someone that work in the legal field for years, judges can be dumb, make huge mistakes that take years to rectify.

[Race Media]

I'll admit I haven't read the ruling - but how do you order someone to "de-index"

If domains are virtual real estate - how do you suddenly pretend that the house next to yours no longer exists?

It undermines the whole domain market surely and has horrible implications for free speech?

[Shay]

Regardless of the scope, it's an interesting twist in the efforts of the US to exert influence over / apply US law to the internet.

Hence the "I'm torn". On one hand, I believe that counterfeit goods should not be sold and if someone is discovered selling them - especially with the intent of pushing them as "the same thing at a knockoff price", they should have the book thrown at them. They should have to pay damages, they should have to forfeit their inventory, and cease immediately.

On the other hand, I do not believe the US government should be able to 'reach into' Google's index or any other search engine, for that matter. Google has taken a step towards combating counterfeit sales, imposters, knockoffs, and the like with their requirement that UPC codes must be provided in the data feed in order to be listed in Google Product Search. While this may not be "big enough" of a step, it is a great start. When they first did this, my concern was that this was going to lock out the smaller businesses who have not yet jumped on-board the UPC bandwagon. In cases like this, the smaller companies can apply for an exemption, which is often given. They (Google) also announced this policy change a few months in advance, which gave time to those merchants who were affected to make the adjustments to their shopping feed that is provided to Google. This policy change only impacted Google's product search and did not directly change organic search results, so it was/is still possible for imposter-peddlers to rank organically and sell on their websites or through a third-party shopping cart.

Worth noting in all of this is that the Federal Law that the ruling refers to specifically calls for the ability of a trademark owner to cease a top level domain that exploits a "famous trademark" illegally. This implies that the Federal government is empowered to cease and freeze domains that are violating trademark law, but I'm not sure that it empowers them to step in and order Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al to purge their index. A better approach in the ruling may have been to "strongly encourage" search engines such as them to be a bit more proactive in blocking such sites, or even call upon them to become leaders and/or generals in the battle against counterfeiting and trademark infringement - but to order them to remove listings from their index is a bit over the top in my opinion and they should stick to encouraging rhetoric.

[Michael Martinez]

I'll admit I haven't read the ruling - but how do you order someone to "de-index"

If domains are virtual real estate - how do you suddenly pretend that the house next to yours no longer exists?

It undermines the whole domain market surely and has horrible implications for free speech?

I have yet to see anyone make a free speech argument against enforcing intellectual property rights that makes sense. The U.S. Constitution forbids the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech -- but nowhere does it include under the aegis of "free speech" acts of terrorism, theft of intellectual property rights, abusive behavior toward other people, or any of a myriad of bad behaviors that so-called "free speech" advocates want to defend.

Intellectual Property Rights are not simply a matter of some law Congress passed. They are established by the constitution itself (in Article 1, Section 8, which states that Congress shall "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries").

You can't just wipe that out with an act of legislation. You have to amend the constitution to take away these rights of American citizens. But the U.S. is also signatory to international agreements that establish and demand the enforcement and protection of these rights. While those international agreements may not always be interpreted or honored in the same way by every nation (and the U.S. has its own bad track record in this respect), you cannot simply wipe out our commitments to THOSE agreements with a simple act of legislation.

In order to create the world that so-called "free speech" advocates clamor for -- where everyone can use whatever content they wish -- you would have to change the U.S. Constitution and formally withdraw from several international agreements.

The laws being proposed may not have the right or best solution for the enforcement problem but they are currently the only proposals on the table. People who fear that something may be lost by supporting these laws need to propose something that works better. They'll have my support.

[parttimepoker]

The concept of IP rights is enshrined in the constitution. The particulars of our modern system are a matter of some law Congress passed and can be undone / modified by the USFG / courts. Further, we de facto wipe out int'l trade commitments with legislation all the time, as online gambling affiliates from the US are painfully aware. The US is also completely fine with essentially temporarily opting out of such commitments, e.g. ignoring a WTO decision wholesale and dragging out the dispute / just paying the eventual penalty.

The concerns most people have with this action - I assume - are that it potentially sets the stage for de-index requests that sit on much shakier ground and that it represents another attempt by the USFG to unilaterally apply US law to a global environment.

I feel like you're arguing against a very small, altho vocal, cadre of free speech advocates. Very few people would advocate the absolute free use of any content for any purposes.

[ak]

It was a great ruling, people should not be allowed to destroy ones reputation or house organized crime where business of commerce is taking place. Selling counterfeit goods using the reputation of another is dangerous grounds and destroys legitimate businesses.