> The problem here is "Don't Be Evil" is so vague. I'm unsure it will have enough standing to succeed, but it's not entirely unreasonable. As will be made obvi

> The problem here is "Don't Be Evil" is so vague. I'm unsure it will have enough standing to succeed, but it's not entirely unreasonable. As will be made obvious by the following comment, I am not a lawyer. But, I always think of the modern judicial system as staying away from saying some particular action is "evil" in the moral sense, rather than just illegal, or even ethically wrong in some cases. I think it would really be something if the court admitted a specific definition of evil for the purposes of deciding on this case. In my view of the world, that kind of thing would need a philosophical or theological basis, which you'd think would then be enshrined, to some extent, in precedent. I doubt anything like that would actually happen in this case, but it would sure be weird if it did.