RSS
Twitter
Yet Another Company Sues Google For Not Being In Google's Index
from the this-won't-go-far dept
Eric Goldman has the details on how Ascentive (a company that many in the tech community accuse of being a scam) has sued Google for removing Ascentive from Google's search index. There's a separate complaint about trademarks and AdWords on competitive ads, but that's an issue that's been covered so often, we'll ignore it in this case. Instead, what's interesting is the claim that Google removing Ascentive from its index is somehow a violation of Ascentive's rights. Of course, previous cases have shown that you have no legal right to have Google rank you where you think it's appropriate -- and if Google decides to remove you entirely, that's its prerogative.
Goldman notes that Ascentive's claim is a bit different than such claims in the past (but no more likely to get anywhere), noting that the refusal to list Ascentive's site is a trademark violation, because "consumers expect to see the trademark owner in organic search results for the trademark and therefore consumers will be actionably confused if the trademark owner doesn't appear there." Talk about twisting the intention of trademark law! It seems unlikely that such a claim gets very far, but it will be fun to see how the court responds to it.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Get a clue
Google is not a RIGHT. They OFFER a service, they are not OBLIGATED to include you in it. They arent the govt, they arent the law, there isnt any constitutional or inalienable right to be on Google. They dont HAVE TO do anything for you, so please get over yourselves (this applies to all the mouth-breathing retard companies out there who think like these morons).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Actually, this one might have a play.
Checking today, Ascentive does show up on the search, and in a remarkable coincidence, there are ZERO adwords ads on the page (searching for Ascentive and Ascentive software).
Seems to me that Google is perhaps playing it safe, or maybe feels slightly guilty about exclusing a brand name company but selling adwords ads on those results?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And it is true... that Ascentive is a scam. Finally Fast is ass and it has been proven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQBsi-UT7zA&fmt=18
Hell, they even call Spybot S&D a virus.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Surely Google has a right of denial
I'd think that if this hits the courts it's going to go Google's way, but perhaps that's naive.
On the face of things, Google is probably not obliged to list any particular URL in its index.
But given its market power, reach and depth, it might be forced to because otherwise it is explicitly acting to restrain trade.
So irrespective of Ascentive's motives or business model, they could press the point in their favor.
Certainly will be an interesting one to watch, though if Anonymous Coward is correct and Google has essentially boxed them off to the side, it kind of takes the wind out of Ascentive's sails (and sales)...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Have you seen their ad ?
It's pretty funny
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Googles index
Many of you are correct that there is not a legal issue if Google wants to eliminate someone. But on the other side of the issue, if Google is the one and only best search engine, then they take on a higher responsibility to be all inclusive or it is a form of sensorship. Does Google have the right to tell you who or what you can look up? Wasn't that one of the initial freedoms of the internet. Soon will they be telling you what to read (or what not to read)?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Googles index
they have to right to include what they wish to their index. just as you have the right not to go to google if you think they are not giving you the search result you feel it should.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Googles index
If Google were the one-and-only way to access content, I suppose I'd be concerned about my freedoms. But there are many ways to access sites, be it competing search engines, typing in an address directly, finding a link in someone other person's page, etc. Google is only removing access via their search, not controlling the entire internet. If they censor/remove links, that's their right.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow, those guys...
I seen that stupid ad plenty of times. Anyone who falls for that ad shouldn't own a pc. Google is using antispyware technology without letting the public know it. Firefox and IE use antiphishing technology, etc. Why not the king of search?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
when you have a monolopy and when your company is responsible for getting the president of the united states elected, you can do about anything you want.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Both will play the laws...always
Scam pricks and google makes no difference to me. These are two idiotic bastard childs only playing at hiding their hand after throwing the rock. One claims it has the right to shot you out; the other has the right to gauge your eyes out. Either way it'll hit those of us who play by the rules as set forth by principled individuals-and will always get the shaft...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Both will play the laws...always
Interesting take on things. One question, how do you figure? I mean, you aren't giving us any reason to believe what you say.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Both will play the laws...always
Google is the greatest company in the last 20 years. Have you tried Sketchup? I cannot believe that program is free. Their Scholar search and book preview allow me to do my job more effectively than ever. Google reveals how corrupt and evil Microsoft is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
to ChrisB - are you an idiot?
WTF? Google is evil as MS. Google just bought books after serving them illegally and bought them only for $125MM . (While amazon and other competitors weren't allowed). The links between Google and the Obama administration are really worrying. (like MS and the oil companies in previous years). Being good to the end user doesn't mean you are good for other companies and mostly publisher that don't have any other choice but to take the Google solution (allowing Google to buy double click was really a bad move, they basically controlling the web). In this case you can see a company (it doesn't matter if it is a scam or not that Google remove without any good explanation. What worry me here is that Google thinks it is above the law and because it is a giant it doesn't need to explain itself to no one. (Taking money from publishers, just because some users click on the Google ads - mainly because you are giving Google a real estate on your site).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A few people have already hit on this. This might not go anywhere today, but wait a couple of years. If Google's market share continues to grow, and there is an established monopoly (or even duopoly) in search, then all of the arguments for net neutrality will also apply to search neutrality.
Just as Comcast can't block access to a Web page it doesn't like, Google will not be allowed to arbitrarily remove pages from its index.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"if Google decides to remove you entirely, that's its prerogative"
thats a scary state of affairs...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Philosophical Question
If Google removes you from their indices, do you still exist?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google index
I can't believe they are suing Google for removing Ascentive from Google's search, and I agree with Google, they have the right to do whatever they want, that's because it is their search engine.
There are plenty of other search engines they can work with.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment