Slashdot Mirror


Searchking Loses Suit Against Google

An anonymous reader submits this story that Searchking has lost its suit against Google for lowering search rankings. Silly lawsuit, good riddance. See our original story.

36 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Talk about conflict of interest... by cruppel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Search for "search engine" at Google...hmmm maybe they should sue themselves?

    1. Re:Talk about conflict of interest... by Restil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that doesn't say unbiased, I don't know what does. :)

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    2. Re:Talk about conflict of interest... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I don't think the word "engine" appears on their page at all, meaning they shouldn't expect them to appear at the top.

      A better search would be to search for sites, using the search term: "search". (I'm pretty sure I said that right)

      Interestingly enough, they are #2.

      Well, I suppose it makes sense. Who goes to google to find google? I imagine not too many click-throughs on that one...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Talk about conflict of interest... by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason why Google didn't come up first when you searched for "search engine" is that you weren't specific enough.

  2. If Google purposely changed pageranks... by fobbman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...do you think that this would happen?

    1. Re:If Google purposely changed pageranks... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      That's a vital search category if your mind works like this:

      Hmmm... I need to find something on the web. Bummer. I don't know how.

      Wait! I remember hearing about a site called a "search engine". It knows how to find anything I need.

      Gee... If I only knew how I could find a search engine. I'm kind of stuck here...

      I know! I'll Google for it!

      Here we go... http//www.google.com ... "search engine" ... OK.

      Ahhh... Alta Vista. Sounds like just what I need.

      I just love the Internet; information is always one click away!

    2. Re:If Google purposely changed pageranks... by jesser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But how do you explain university?

      Other good searches:

      real browser

      nerds

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  3. Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A lawsuit that ended in a positive way. Sheesh, why can't that happen more often? :)

  4. Manipulation of stats by Trollificus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the CEO of Search King:

    "SearchKing never broke a law, yet was accused, judged and executed without so much as a notice of intent. This affected thousands of innocent people without just cause."

    There's no dispute that they didn't break any laws. But if I recall, didn't Search King manipulate the Google page rank system to artificially inflate their own rank? Google must have a ToS clause for that sort of thing.

    --

    "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
    - Gov. Jesse Ventura

    1. Re:Manipulation of stats by mondoterrifico · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are a private company. Google can do whatever they want to the rankings. If they wanted to rank everyone in reverse order starting tommorow they could. SearchKing was just some jackass company trying to get publicity and it worked.

    2. Re:Manipulation of stats by greenrd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Google cannot provide junk and claim it's a "search result".

      Umm... Altavista did so regularly before Google came along. Google has raised the bar by an order of magnitude - but it's still a matter of subjectivity, as the judge rightly ruled. One man's useless search result is another man's goldmine.

    3. Re:Manipulation of stats by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually they can't. The thing is that they're providing a service to their customers (ie. us using it and "paying" for it by seeing the ads). And like all products and services provided by companies they are legally bound to live up to some standards (and reversed ranking would be too poor standards).

      I don't think this argument holds water.

      You watch television to be entertained. You are seeing their opinion of what is entertaining. You "pay" for it by watching ads. They can put on anything they think is entertaining. if you don't like it, then don't tune in.

      Google is providing their opinion as to what are good search results. Just their opinion. There is no obligation for those results to conform to anyone else's opinion. They could have any opinion they wanted as to search results. If you don't like that they turn the results completely upside down, then go somewhere else. Even by running ads, Google has no obligation to you whatsoever. Just because Google's site is run by a publicly traded company doesn't change this fact.

      TV in fact has some regulations as to what can and must be shown (i.e. certian amount of news, public service ads, etc. required) because the airwaves is a limited resource.

      Since the Internet is an unlimited resource, there are in fact NO FCC restrictions as to what Google or anyone else can put on their own website. Unlike with the limited airwaves, anyone can build an internet search engine in their basement. If it has really good technology or is favored for other reasons, you grow it like a business. All you need to build a search engine is the resources, either minimal, or funded by investors. Of course, the investors could come later if you have a fresh new search technology concept.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. awful layout by shmuc · · Score: 5, Funny

    searchking should sue their web designer first... before i do ahhh my eyes! the goggles, they do nothing!

    --

    Efren Belizario
    headspeak.com
    1. Re:awful layout by knightinshiningarmor · · Score: 4, Funny

      As the webmaster of Searchking I find that offensive and I'm going to sue you.

  6. cry about it ya baby... you don't own google. by r0xah · · Score: 5, Funny

    *sniffle* *sniffle* mr. judge... google won't pick me first even after i paid other people to act like i am a good choice... can you punish them and help me get picked first again!!! *sniffle* *sniffle* -searchking

    --
    those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -isaac asimov
  7. Re:Lesson by silvaran · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you read the article? This had nothing to do with patents or copyrights, it had to do with SearchKing getting pissed because Google was reducing the rank of its links. Even the article synopsis indicates it's not about patents: "...a suit that alleged the company manipulated search results in its powerful Web index."

    The judge dismissed the case because Google's system "constitutes opinions protected by the First Amendment."

    SearchKing wanted to be "restored to its previous PageRank and to be awarded $75,000 in damages."

  8. The trial was fixed... by angst7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The jury was intimidated by the pigeon mafia.

    ---
    Jedimom.com, choo choo choosing you!

    --
    StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
  9. Search King... by cageyjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somehow this just reminds be of The Simpsons and Mr Plow vs Plow King...

  10. look at me, i'm suing google!! by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    from the article:
    SearchKing CEO Bob Massa expressed disappointment over the ruling, but he didn't see it as a complete loss.
    Of course it's not a complete loss. SearchKing has received more attention with this lawsuit than they ever would have on their own business merits. That's part of why suing a big player like google or IBM is so lucrative even when your case is so flimsy. Attention whores.
  11. The [Search]King is dead! by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 4, Funny

    Long live the King [of Searching]!

  12. Have you noticed? by danila · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the lawsuit was dismissed by the court, Google had to restore (voluntarily) the Searchking rankings. That means those damn search engine spammers can continue their evil doings. :( Google tried to adapt its system to abuse, but failed. Unfortunately, it seems that the more important Google becomes, the less freedom they will have to arbitrarily change (fine-tune) the system. Users lose as usual. :(

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:Have you noticed? by kzinti · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google had to restore (voluntarily) the Searchking rankings.

      Had to? Voluntarily? Those two are contradictory.

      Google probably restored the SearchKing rankings as a temporary measure until the matter was settled. Now that it's been established that Google is within their First Amendment rights to rank sites any way they choose, they should return to the version of PageRank that rightfully discredits rankings manipulated by the likes of SearchKing.

  13. For our next trick... by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Silly lawsuit, good riddance.

    Frivols, SCO is next.

    GNS/Linux is not SCO!

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Lesson by koh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually SearchKing got pissed after Google changed the rules in reaction to SearchKing abusing the ranking system in the first place.

    It's like a crybaby screaming because his parents realized he found a way to the cookie jar and finally locked the cupboard door... and it's quite sad that complains like these are allowed to made it to court and waste justice time...

    Good thing they lost anyway. Sorry SearchKing, go find another business model :)

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
  17. Ha! by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Make sure you check out the response from the CEO of SearchKing (and probably the only employee):
    http://gooogle.searchking.com

    Juicy tidbits:
    "Of course we are dissappointed with the judge's decision to dismiss the preliminary injunction, but it was not unexpected. We knew this was a case of a highly technical nature and that educating the court with only the short filings allowed would be very difficult."

    "It was about the abuse of power. SearchKing never broke a law, yet was accused, judged and executed without so much as a notice of intent. This affected thousands of innocent people without just cause."

    And then, the letter, the whole thing is so good that you just HAVE to read it in its entirety.

    1. Re:Ha! by SkArcher · · Score: 4, Funny

      "We do not see the dismissal as a loss, rather, we see it as a victory."

      Repeat after me: There are no American Tanks in Baghdad

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
  18. Crux of the whole SearchKing confusion... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fallacy?

    Assigning a monetary value to pagerank.

    SearchKing believes they can set a price on the value of a pagerank and sell it to consumers (by using appropriate technology investment to increase the pagerank value). However, 1) Google has not granted resale right to this entity, and more importantly 2) it is too volatile to monetize. It's like trying to predict the % change at close of penny stocks.

    Google is under no obligation to stabilize this "good", which then helps SearchKing capitalize on it.

    It may seem (at first) that one could assign a monetary value to pagerank because (at least for popular sites) pagerank is relatively stable with respect to other sites of similar popularity. But the reason why a site achieves page rank is because of popularity.

    By attempting to inflate a site's pagerank through a monetary transaction (thus using artificial methods), you are essentially trying to buy popularity with money. Unfortunately, paying SearchKing won't make other people like your site more, so that transaction won't work (unless SearchKing can make everyone visit the site in question, and then like it).

    I think SearchKing and its employees' grasp on reality is a little bit deficient.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Crux of the whole SearchKing confusion... by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the whole point of Google's search results is that they're not affected by advertising. That's why they're useful to Google's users. Yes, Google does ads. Notice that they're clearly and completely seperate from the search results. And what better ranking than "most relevant to query" would you suggest?

  19. Some one robbed the plunder house!!!! js by yintercept · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought this was a really fun lawsuit. Basically Search King is upset that Google found a way to counter Search King's manipulation of the algorithm. This is like a shop lifter suing the kwikimart for putting the cigarettes behind the counter where they are out of reach.

    Yes, not being able to manipulate the results hurts Search King. Google's changing the results helped those who weren't in the SEO business. Thank goodness a judge tossed out the case. Let's hope more suits get thrown out in the future.

  20. Maybe google will catch these A-holes by westyvw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This site:

    http://www.traffic-power.com

    will get caught, and their sites moved down.

    They manipulate content in web sites to link to thier own servers which then link back to the site, artificially increasing their rank.

    check this "secret" page for sites, go to one and look at the source.

    http://www.traffic-power.com/r

    Bastards

  21. Re:Lesson by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did you read the article? This had nothing to do with patents or copyrights...

    Actually, that's not true. If you read the actual judgement here , you'll find that the strongest argument centered around patents, in the following vein:

    (1) Google claimed its rankings were opinion and thus protected by the First Amendment.
    (2) Search King claimed that they couldn't be opinions precisely because Google holds a patent on the process used to make them.
    (3) The judge found Search King's argument "not wholly without merit" (p. 6), but that Google could still alter the result of that patented process in a subjective manner and thus it was protected as free speech.

    The critical argument by Search King (p. 5):

    First, Search King notes that Lawrence Page ("Page"), the founder of Google and the inventor of the PageRank system, holds a U.S. patent on the system. Search King argues that... because patented products or processes must be replicable... the PageRank system must be objective in nature, and therefore capable of being proven true or false.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  22. Re:Manipulation of facts by http · · Score: 4, Funny
    i'm baffled by what they said
    accused, judged and executed
    so.. it would seem they consider Google's opinions to have the force of law, and that appearing lower on Google's system (as opposed to simply being removed) equates to corporate execution.
    wish i could have got drugs that good back in the day.
    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  23. Clueless, a Complete Asshole, or Both? by RoninM · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article (and the letter published by SearchKing):

    SearchKing never broke a law, yet was accused, judged and executed without so much as a notice of intent. This affected thousands of innocent people without just cause.

    Hello? He filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that it committed improprieties. He called Google a monopoly and said that its actions were intended to squash competition. He's wrongfully accused Google of breaking a variety of laws and then has the audicity to claim that he's the victim?

    A wake-up call: SearchKing was never accused of anything. Bob Massa publically stated that SearchKing was selling links in an attempt to boost his customers' PageRanks; a practice explicitly forbidden by Google (as described here):

    However, certain actions such as cloaking, writing text that can be seen by search engines but not by users, or setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines may result in permanent removal from our index. If you think your site may fall into this category, you might try 'cleaning up' the page and sending a re-inclusion request to help@google.com. We do not make any guarantees about if or when we will re-include your site.

    This is obviously Google's prerogative and, moreover, what's best for Google's users (and the Internet) as a whole. So while SearchKing CEO Bob Massa is whining about Google attempting "to restrict the legal business of another without due process" and the "thousands of innocent people" that have suffered because of this decision, the truth of it is that he's the one trying to restrict the legal business of another and reduce the usability of Google, thereby negatively affecting the vast majority of Internet users.

    That cements the asshole part. The cluelessness is even easier to prove. The lawsuit obviously never had a leg to stand on and everyone knew it. And while some might attribute it to a shrewd marketing move by Massa, it's garnered only niche coverage and a lot of negative publicity; the inevitable loss has effectively ended his business of attempting to sell PageRank and cost him legal fees besides. He releases a settlement offer, too, which means he either expects us to believe that this suit was ever about a noble endeavor to better the Internet or he honestly believed that there exists some legal standard by which he might've won the case. Yet more evidence: his settlement offer demands that Google put sites who have broken Google's terms of service on notice -- but Google's policy concerning people trying to artificially inflate PageRank is both obvious and public. His whole settlement offer would be laughable if it weren't so tragically stupid.

    My vote, then, is that Bob Massa is both clueless and a complete asshole. This ought to be a poll, really.

    --
    If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
  24. Re:Well by Blkdeath · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They feel this way because google is so popular that, with some businesses online, google can make or break you.

    This is not even reminiscant of a valid argument.

    The CEO of Google could, perfectly within his rights, "hit the switch" right now . That's it; no more Google. Format the drives, massive eBay auction of the servers, and store the software safely in a vault for all eternity. By the logic above, that would "break" all of these businesses who, for whatever inexplicable reason are relying solely on Google's free services for their page hits. (Did I emphasize that enough? Free? Free. FREE !). Nobody has any right to be included in Google's database, likewise nobody has the right to demand that any site be removed from Google's database.

    There's a concept in business known as "advertising". It is something that must be accounted for in a business plan, budgetted for annually, forecasted for the future and carefully considered at all times. Simply submitting your URL to an online form and hoping you get a good PageRank is NOT how a business advertises; it's how homepages and Blogs advertise.

    --
    BD Phone Home!

    Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.