4 ms·
Actually, I thought the article pretty clearly stated the opposite of your last point. One, the women were far from litigious (depends on your definition of co
by blurry 18y ago
Actually, I thought the article pretty clearly stated the opposite of your last point.
One, the women were far from litigious (depends on your definition of course but to me taking a year and using everything from humor to begging in an attempt to resolve the case without going to litigation is the opposite of litigious).
Two, they did not have the resources to sue the posters - unless I misunderstood the article, Google's legal firm is representing them for free because Google wants to have control over any legal precedents that affect their ability to index non-moderated online forums.
- joeyo 18y agoThat last part about the law firm representing them for free because it would allow Google to have some control over precedent seems, if true, very ethically questionable to me. Lawyer have a responsibility of undivided loyalty to their clients. Just because the work is being done pro bono does not nullify that responsibility.