19 ms·

The areas raised in cases such as Field v. Google.

by Ologn 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago
That was just about google caching stuff and making that cache available again, it has nothing to do with the core of google (search engine / advertising) and was not as far as I can see a founding principle for google.
- Ologn 11y ago
  The core of Google is a search engine and that case has everything to do with the founding principles of Google. As I said, this is just one of the cases. There was also Parker v. Google. Or Authors Guild et al vs. Google. Or Viacom v. Google.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    No, because they don't actually have to expose the cache to make a working search engine. The Authors Guild had to do with Google books and Viacom vs Google was an outflow of them buying youtube. Really, you are simply not correct about any of this.
    - Ologn 11y ago
      Also Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v Google. Also Perfect 10 v Google. These cases mostly revolve around the same issue - they say Google is ripping off their content.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        You keep on bringing more and more stuff on that has nothing to do with what google was founded on. Google news linking to newspaper articles has nothing to do with the search engine and so on (it was in fact someone's '20%' project that gained traction long after google was founded). Anyway, I'm done with pointing these out, yes, google got sued a lot, nobody ever - as far as I know - sued them on what they were founded on, let's say pagerank or the fact that they are a search engine at all or anything closely related to their mainstay of income once they found a way to generate it (adsense). And there was absolutely nothing 'legally gray' about it.
        dilemma 11y ago
        Your dismissal of what the parent brought up is arbitrary. All of these lawsuits are due to Google's business model, which it needs to keep the search engine running.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        No, google could run their search engine just fine on just adsense, we know that because they did. All that other stuff came later.
- amelius 11y ago
  Isn't a search index a kind of cache? I mean, invert it, and you get a pretty good picture of the original data.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Typically the index only returns an abstract, not the whole article, yes, you could invert the index on a word-by-word basis and reconstitute some or all of the articles but that is not the interface that is exposed to the outside world and that was definitely not what this lawsuit was about. The statement that 'google was founded on a gray legal area' holds absolutely no water for me.

The areas raised in cases such as Field v. Google.

by Ologn 11y ago

The areas raised in cases such as Field v. Google.

That was just about google caching stuff and making that cache available again, it has nothing to do with the core of google (search engine / advertising) and was not as far as I can see a founding principle for google.

Ologn 11y ago
The core of Google is a search engine and that case has everything to do with the founding principles of Google. As I said, this is just one of the cases. There was also Parker v. Google. Or Authors Guild et al vs. Google. Or Viacom v. Google.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  No, because they don't actually have to expose the cache to make a working search engine. The Authors Guild had to do with Google books and Viacom vs Google was an outflow of them buying youtube. Really, you are simply not correct about any of this.
  - Ologn 11y ago
    Also Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v Google. Also Perfect 10 v Google. These cases mostly revolve around the same issue - they say Google is ripping off their content.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      You keep on bringing more and more stuff on that has nothing to do with what google was founded on. Google news linking to newspaper articles has nothing to do with the search engine and so on (it was in fact someone's '20%' project that gained traction long after google was founded). Anyway, I'm done with pointing these out, yes, google got sued a lot, nobody ever - as far as I know - sued them on what they were founded on, let's say pagerank or the fact that they are a search engine at all or anything closely related to their mainstay of income once they found a way to generate it (adsense). And there was absolutely nothing 'legally gray' about it.
      - dilemma 11y ago
        Your dismissal of what the parent brought up is arbitrary. All of these lawsuits are due to Google's business model, which it needs to keep the search engine running.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        No, google could run their search engine just fine on just adsense, we know that because they did. All that other stuff came later.
amelius 11y ago
Isn't a search index a kind of cache? I mean, invert it, and you get a pretty good picture of the original data.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Typically the index only returns an abstract, not the whole article, yes, you could invert the index on a word-by-word basis and reconstitute some or all of the articles but that is not the interface that is exposed to the outside world and that was definitely not what this lawsuit was about. The statement that 'google was founded on a gray legal area' holds absolutely no water for me.