This is a fascinating ruling. It's almost like the judge invoked a "don't be a dck" penalty against them. Seems like if the original copyright holder had filed

This is a fascinating ruling. It's almost like the judge invoked a "don't be a dck" penalty against them. Seems like if the original copyright holder had filed suit (instead of Righthaven), if they went through the standard request for takedown first, if there was some sort of damage that could have been proven (possible Google issues are just one possibility even if $ not being made off by site reprinting article), if there was some kind of actual monetary damages (in some ways just wasting the courts time if results in $0) -- any combination of that and it could have gone other way. Also really* leaves you wondering how competent the Righthaven attorneys are. Another very nice piece by Nate Anderson.