5 ms·

I wonder if this will have a material effect on the value of Google. An ad firm / search engine forced to comply with these kinds of rulings is a new developmen

I wonder if this will have a material effect on the value of Google. An ad firm / search engine forced to comply with these kinds of rulings is a new development in my opinion. Reading the details of the case makes me insist "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue" because it's pretty clear-cut to me. At least in this case and it remains to be seen if there will be other reasonable cases in the future.

donatj 9y ago
The company was merely rebranding products they had purchased. Reselling rebranded equipment has a long legal history. No one was being ripped off as you put it, they were being paid for their goods. We just had a Supreme Court win for the right of resale in the United States over rebranded refilled printer cartridges. Should Lexmark now be able to go to court in Canada and get the refillers delisted in the United States? It's literally the exact same issue.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  My understanding is the company started out by re-branding equipment but then stole some proprietary data so that they could create their own competing product. "The case began as a dispute between two technology companies, Equustek Solutions and Datalink Technologies Gateways. The latter was accused of repackaging one of the former’s products as its own, and then of nicking confidential files from Equustek and using the information contained within to produce and sell a competing product."
mattnewton 9y ago
What worries me is the precedent for each nation to be able to enforce it's idea of what speech is okay on google, for the whole world. Does google just have to keep exiting markets when they have a disagreement about something, or do they keep delisting any result internationally to not offend Russia, or India, or whatever market next wants something removed. It was simpler to say "we don't do that outside your jurisdiction" before this precedent. I have no doubt they will be able to figure it out on a case by case basis though, it just gets far more complicated.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Just about everything is illegal somewhere. OK, so can Saudi Arabia force Google to delist everything that violates its laws about sexuality? Or Nigeria? What about China and the Dalai Lama? Thailand and its king? So then, who decides which national courts get global control?
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    The China problem example suggests that Google can stand up for freedom of information principles. But it can't just exit every large market.
    - lazerpants 9y ago
      But there are only 36 million people in Canada. It isn't a very large market. It would be interesting to see the political reaction to Google closing its three campuses in Canada. The PM went to the opening of the largest one, outside of Toronto.
      - mattnewton 9y ago
        You have to pick and choose your battles. I think you can only win when appealing to the court of public opinion if the other side is doing something the public could find odious. I think here it's too easy to paint it as David vs Goliath, and people aren't going to care about the slippery slope argument. And they aren't wrong, I certainly hope Google doesn't pull out of Canada over something like this.
Cakez0r 9y ago
> "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue" Because doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing if "something" doesn't solve the problem. What happens now when Datalink registers a .org to circumvent the block? Equustek are back to square one playing whack-a-mole, having achieved nothing and have forced Google to damage their own product in the process.
pyre 9y ago
> put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off No such person exists. If a physical item is being rebranded, then the item must have been purchased from the original manufacturer. This means that they got money for it, the same as if anyone else had purchased it. If they are somehow not getting money for it, then it's either a case of theft or it's not really a rebranded item because someone else made it.

donatj 9y ago

The company was merely rebranding products they had purchased. Reselling rebranded equipment has a long legal history. No one was being ripped off as you put it, they were being paid for their goods. We just had a Supreme Court win for the right of resale in the United States over rebranded refilled printer cartridges. Should Lexmark now be able to go to court in Canada and get the refillers delisted in the United States? It's literally the exact same issue.

6stringmerc 9y ago
Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.
cmiles74 9y ago
My understanding is the company started out by re-branding equipment but then stole some proprietary data so that they could create their own competing product. "The case began as a dispute between two technology companies, Equustek Solutions and Datalink Technologies Gateways. The latter was accused of repackaging one of the former’s products as its own, and then of nicking confidential files from Equustek and using the information contained within to produce and sell a competing product."

mattnewton 9y ago

What worries me is the precedent for each nation to be able to enforce it's idea of what speech is okay on google, for the whole world. Does google just have to keep exiting markets when they have a disagreement about something, or do they keep delisting any result internationally to not offend Russia, or India, or whatever market next wants something removed. It was simpler to say "we don't do that outside your jurisdiction" before this precedent. I have no doubt they will be able to figure it out on a case by case basis though, it just gets far more complicated.

mirimir 9y ago
Just about everything is illegal somewhere. OK, so can Saudi Arabia force Google to delist everything that violates its laws about sexuality? Or Nigeria? What about China and the Dalai Lama? Thailand and its king? So then, who decides which national courts get global control?
- mattnewton 9y ago
  The China problem example suggests that Google can stand up for freedom of information principles. But it can't just exit every large market.
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    But there are only 36 million people in Canada. It isn't a very large market. It would be interesting to see the political reaction to Google closing its three campuses in Canada. The PM went to the opening of the largest one, outside of Toronto.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      You have to pick and choose your battles. I think you can only win when appealing to the court of public opinion if the other side is doing something the public could find odious. I think here it's too easy to paint it as David vs Goliath, and people aren't going to care about the slippery slope argument. And they aren't wrong, I certainly hope Google doesn't pull out of Canada over something like this.

Cakez0r 9y ago

> "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue" Because doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing if "something" doesn't solve the problem. What happens now when Datalink registers a .org to circumvent the block? Equustek are back to square one playing whack-a-mole, having achieved nothing and have forced Google to damage their own product in the process.

pyre 9y ago

> put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off No such person exists. If a physical item is being rebranded, then the item must have been purchased from the original manufacturer. This means that they got money for it, the same as if anyone else had purchased it. If they are somehow not getting money for it, then it's either a case of theft or it's not really a rebranded item because someone else made it.