3 ms·

If this is amazing chutzpah, then everyone has it. It's bog standard to claim that complainants don't have standing to sue. This is what happens when you try t

If this is amazing chutzpah, then everyone has it. It's bog standard to claim that complainants don't have standing to sue. This is what happens when you try to impose narrative on arguments in court filings. They aren't like regular arguments. You could just as easily write the next story on if Google is so confident that they can't be sued in the UK, why are they making all these other arguments about why the complainants are wrong? It really undermines their argument if they have to take multiple approaches to it! Edit: if anyone can find the actual filing, please link it. I'm happy to eat crow if I'm wrong :) I found coverage of this in the telegraph as well, but they also don't link to the actual submission to the court.

jacques_chester 13y ago
> It's bog standard to claim that complainants don't have standing to sue. I'd also expect that Google's terms include language with the general meaning of "all disputes to be resolved under California law in California courts". Contracts regularly include such terms and other courts will usually support such terms. > It really undermines their argument if they have to take multiple approaches to it! It often confuses people when legal filings involve many arguments, some of them mutually incompatible. But the point is that if A is knocked out by the judge, B might work. So you argue A and B, because you don't know in advance what will work.
fraqed 13y ago
Additional information on this case and links to filings can be found at http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/news http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/news
- magicalist 13y ago
  I see only a press release by the group suing (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the judgemental one; the latest post is a copy of their latest press release), no link to the filing.
  - fraqed 13y ago
    The second post (The case against Google - Court Documents) has links, to the court documents on Scribd or direct PDF downloads http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/google-lawsuit-legal-papers http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/google-lawsuit-legal-papers. With respect to Google's filing perhaps the documents have not yet been made public by the court.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> It's bog standard to claim that complainants don't have standing to sue. I'd also expect that Google's terms include language with the general meaning of "all disputes to be resolved under California law in California courts". Contracts regularly include such terms and other courts will usually support such terms. > It really undermines their argument if they have to take multiple approaches to it! It often confuses people when legal filings involve many arguments, some of them mutually incompatible. But the point is that if A is knocked out by the judge, B might work. So you argue A and B, because you don't know in advance what will work.

fraqed 13y ago

Additional information on this case and links to filings can be found at http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/news http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/news

magicalist 13y ago
I see only a press release by the group suing (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the judgemental one; the latest post is a copy of their latest press release), no link to the filing.
- fraqed 13y ago
  The second post (The case against Google - Court Documents) has links, to the court documents on Scribd or direct PDF downloads http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/google-lawsuit-legal-papers http://www.googlelawsuit.co.uk/google-lawsuit-legal-papers. With respect to Google's filing perhaps the documents have not yet been made public by the court.