4 ms·

Some part of me wonders what would happen if they were to turn off Google to Canada for a day and list the judge's phone number as the person to complain to. (

by Natsu 12y ago

Some part of me wonders what would happen if they were to turn off Google to Canada for a day and list the judge's phone number as the person to complain to. (Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)

tempestn 12y ago
Probably a lot of angry users, anti-trust proceedings, and a bunch of other stuff they don't want.
kryptiskt 12y ago
Sounds like something from here would apply: "Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours: - Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding - Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena - Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court - Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada
- jrockway 12y ago
  Will the US extradite someone to Canada for contempt of court?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    They could simply seize the assets of Google Montreal.
    - vacri 12y ago
      I imagine Google going dark in Canada would hurt Canada more than it's worth (playing out the fantasy scenario). I don't just mean search, but at this point there'll be plenty of companies that rely on Google Apps, including gmail.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Yes, but the law will generally not bend so readily to blackmail as people think it will. Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and other global IT companies are at an advantage here because they can always pack up and move but if they start pissing off the legal system in the larger economies it may very well backfire. For 'brick and mortar' companies such tricks are a lot harder to pull off. Also, to protect against mutual damage governments can enter into collectives which have a lot more power against multi-nationals than any single country. If a judge orders you 'x', you can appeal but in the meantime it is usually wise do 'x', unless you've very carefully weighed the risks and any fall-out and you decide to make a stand. It's quite possible this is a case worth doing that for.
        vacri 12y ago
        Oh, for sure. I'm just playing out a fantasy scenario. I imagine in the google offices that making Canada dark in response would have been passed as a joke, but no-one would seriously think it. And even if they did think of it seriously, the legal team would stomp them before they could do anything.
- tezza 12y ago
  I agree, out and out Contempt of Court. Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred. No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge. They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Contempt of Court is very serious.
  - vacri 12y ago
    They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the judge cares about personally, and you'll find a country that opposes it. Google can also complain that it's being targetted - why not Bing? Yahoo? Any other search providers? Does Wikipedia have a page for the company? What about reseller companies, that resell the competitor - not only are they facilitators, they're witting facilitators? What about sites with user reviews? At what point do we draw the moral line about shooting the messenger?
    - Confusion 12y ago
      And Google isn't a person to jail. Which nicely illustrates one of the major problems of having granted corporations 'legal person' status: the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations. What's a proper punishment for flagrant contempt of the court by a corporation? And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. That is in fact their raison d'être.
      - annnnd 12y ago
        > the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations Good point! :) Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?
      - 12y ago
jacquesm 12y ago
I've been party to a court session where the defendant tried to pull something like that. Let's just say I would advise against it, 'career limiting move' does not even begin to describe it.
- coldpie 12y ago
  Man, I'd love to hear this story.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    No doubt, but I don't think it would be appropriate to stick the knife in even further. The case was a complete victory and we ended up drafting the settlement agreement one sided. There is nothing to gain by further destroying the reputation of the other side. Live & let live. I'm fairly sure they learned their lesson ;) I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session. Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.
Shivetya 12y ago
They should delist the other guy as well so it does appear they are taking sides. Delisting the Canadian government might be worthwhile too
wbillingsley 12y ago
I think one inevitable fairly result would be many other national governments observing Google trying to use its market position in order to bully the courts and overpower the rule of law in a country, and swiftly passing legislation ordering Google's break up as a company so that it can never do it again.
ntakasaki 12y ago
That would just lead to a shareholder lawsuit and more traffic to DDG, Bing and Blekko.
atmosx 12y ago
Nothing. Google is not Apple or Microsoft. It's not hardware they are selling. There are many positive things but there's a big downside too: A new search engine, is a click away. No one has to sweat about it. If 5% of the clicks actually like the new search engine, then Google would have lost 5% of it's clients in a day.

by Natsu 12y ago

tempestn 12y ago

Probably a lot of angry users, anti-trust proceedings, and a bunch of other stuff they don't want.

kryptiskt 12y ago

Sounds like something from here would apply: "Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours: - Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding - Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena - Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court - Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada

jrockway 12y ago
Will the US extradite someone to Canada for contempt of court?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  They could simply seize the assets of Google Montreal.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I imagine Google going dark in Canada would hurt Canada more than it's worth (playing out the fantasy scenario). I don't just mean search, but at this point there'll be plenty of companies that rely on Google Apps, including gmail.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Yes, but the law will generally not bend so readily to blackmail as people think it will. Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and other global IT companies are at an advantage here because they can always pack up and move but if they start pissing off the legal system in the larger economies it may very well backfire. For 'brick and mortar' companies such tricks are a lot harder to pull off. Also, to protect against mutual damage governments can enter into collectives which have a lot more power against multi-nationals than any single country. If a judge orders you 'x', you can appeal but in the meantime it is usually wise do 'x', unless you've very carefully weighed the risks and any fall-out and you decide to make a stand. It's quite possible this is a case worth doing that for.
      - vacri 12y ago
        Oh, for sure. I'm just playing out a fantasy scenario. I imagine in the google offices that making Canada dark in response would have been passed as a joke, but no-one would seriously think it. And even if they did think of it seriously, the legal team would stomp them before they could do anything.
tezza 12y ago
I agree, out and out Contempt of Court. Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred. No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge. They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Contempt of Court is very serious.
- vacri 12y ago
  They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the judge cares about personally, and you'll find a country that opposes it. Google can also complain that it's being targetted - why not Bing? Yahoo? Any other search providers? Does Wikipedia have a page for the company? What about reseller companies, that resell the competitor - not only are they facilitators, they're witting facilitators? What about sites with user reviews? At what point do we draw the moral line about shooting the messenger?
  - Confusion 12y ago
    And Google isn't a person to jail. Which nicely illustrates one of the major problems of having granted corporations 'legal person' status: the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations. What's a proper punishment for flagrant contempt of the court by a corporation? And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. That is in fact their raison d'être.
    - annnnd 12y ago
      > the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations Good point! :) Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?
    - 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

I've been party to a court session where the defendant tried to pull something like that. Let's just say I would advise against it, 'career limiting move' does not even begin to describe it.

coldpie 12y ago
Man, I'd love to hear this story.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  No doubt, but I don't think it would be appropriate to stick the knife in even further. The case was a complete victory and we ended up drafting the settlement agreement one sided. There is nothing to gain by further destroying the reputation of the other side. Live & let live. I'm fairly sure they learned their lesson ;) I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session. Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.

Shivetya 12y ago

They should delist the other guy as well so it does appear they are taking sides. Delisting the Canadian government might be worthwhile too

wbillingsley 12y ago

I think one inevitable fairly result would be many other national governments observing Google trying to use its market position in order to bully the courts and overpower the rule of law in a country, and swiftly passing legislation ordering Google's break up as a company so that it can never do it again.

ntakasaki 12y ago

That would just lead to a shareholder lawsuit and more traffic to DDG, Bing and Blekko.

atmosx 12y ago

Nothing. Google is not Apple or Microsoft. It's not hardware they are selling. There are many positive things but there's a big downside too: A new search engine, is a click away. No one has to sweat about it. If 5% of the clicks actually like the new search engine, then Google would have lost 5% of it's clients in a day.