Slashdot Mirror
CPA Googles For His Name, Sues Google For Libel
fbform writes "Mark Maughan, an accountant, searched Google for his name on March 25 2003 and found some 'alarming, false, misleading and injurious' information about himself and his firm. Therefore, he is now suing Google, Yahoo (which used Google as its search engine at the time), AOL (for using Google to enhance its search results) and Time Warner (because they're the same company as AOL) for libel. Specifically, his lawyer John Girardi believes that Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context when displaying search results."
Googling for "litigious schmuck" now turns up a new entry...
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
...how much of it was true? ;)
I think it should be manditory for people to know how things work before they can sue someone. I realize why this guy's suing (it wasn't HIS lisence revoked) but seriously. He should be given the job to check over the 3 billion pages google has for libel.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context
Yeah it isn't like lawyers to do that is it?
Hey everybody, I heard that Mark Maughan once killed a man in Reno just to watch him die!
He also has poor math skills and failed basic algebra twice.
I called several of my business' competitors, and asked them for their opinion on my company, and they said they were better! This is outrageous!
... is censorship, because if they delete him from Google nobody can find him.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He just wants some free publicity. Seriously, this will be good for his business.
Tort reform, anyone?
if his lawyer browses this at -1.
hey
Man sues white pages for listing his name and phone number. WTF!
I just googled the guy's name and got nothing that said that he had been "disciplined for gross negligence, for failing to timely submit a client's claim for refund of overpayment of taxes, and for practicing as a CPA without a permit".
Maybe they changed things in an effort to stop the lawsuit, which, btw, is one worthy of SCO-like fame.
On
Suing Slashdot for the negative press on Darl McBride...
Last i checked Libel required some form of intent since google's results are computer generrated by the web spiders where the intent do the spiders have it out for him?
If this guy gets any money.... actually, if this guy gets any money, it will only continue the current legal trends.
However, I was going to say that if this guy gets any money our legal system will have gone kaput. This is like suing a library for providing books which contain recommendations against your products. It's also like suing me for giving you a book with the same information.
What a great example of shooting the messenger... how pathetically ridiculous.
Oh, and is this guy actually suing the parties responsible for the creation of the socalled 'defamatory content'? Probably not, seeing as how they are broke due to doing business with a poor accountant.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Have fun tilting at that windmill, bub.
Mark Maughan is a baby.
There, now he has someone else to sue.
The first page of google for "Mark Maughan" brings up a British car ad, some HERF hax0r website discussion messages, some baseball stats and 2 LDS pages. Either: :-)
1. This guy was on a fishing expedition to find people to sue
2. Or according to Googles malicious misrepresentation, he's dangerous for google - an expert Mormon pitcher who has HERF guns and tcpdump installed in his Mini
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
How many people searched for their names in google after reading this article?
I can see why he might think he has a legitimate claim against google (or is he just talking about how google will give results that highlight search terms, separated with "...."?) but how could Yahoo or AOL be responsible?
Is is Yahoo/AOL's responsibility to make sure that the informaiton they access (NOT the information they themselves portray) is correct?
And Time Warner? I wonder if he has sued other companies in the past with 'icey sidewalk' type claims.
This comment isn't insightful, interesting, or funny but...
This guy is a friggin idiot. And a whiny bitch.
Just a guy with an opinion
..Darl McBride. Separated at birth?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Wait until SCO get's a hold of this! Perhaps they'll be suing Google afterall.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Wonder if this will add strength to his case?
Seems like google represent the page quite correctly to me.
Anyway, here's what I was going to post... Can this CPA add up 2 and 2? If there is libelous information on the Internet, and he wishes to pursue litigation, then he should go after the persons responsible for the information. Google is only an index, making the information on the Internet easily available for access. Without Google (and perhaps without similar search engines), it would be all but impossible to find anything useful on the Internet.
In fact, I think the aforementioned CPA should THANK Google for making it possible for him to FIND the offending information, so that he can take action against whomever he should take action. Without Google, the alleged libel might have been posted all over the Internet and our friend the CPA would never have been any the wiser.
I further think there is no basis in law for suing an index for pointing to information. On the contrary, I think this was tested in court quite a few times (in all those trials against linking to pages within a site) and it was decided that you can link to whatever the heck you want to link to.
Therefore, I think this CPA is making a stupid decision, and I believe the case will get dismissed. I hope Google countersues for legal fees. And wins.
Oh yeah, and did I mention I'm a Supreme Court Justice? Yeah, the Supreme Court of Bullshit.
So in other words he is suing Google, et al. for pointing to publicly available records that are not flattering. The odd side effect is now that everyone will see this link and know all the sorted details about he and his law firm. Before he made this fuss no one would have cared. Maybe he will sue me too for posting this link. Hmm. . . .
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
"I think it should be manditory for people to know how things work before they can sue someone."
Does this mean no one will be able to sue me if I write destructive code in perl?
My Blog
This page seems to list some disciplinary action taken against his law firm. I quote from the "Cause for Discipline" column (all emphasis mine):
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Sounds like someone knew they'd have no luck taking on the state and decided to try and get some quick cash out a Google. Nice try.
The mental midget known as Mark Maughan, who has only been a member of his local CPA association for about a year, is just out to get some easy cash by trying to make it more expensive for Google to fight him in court. CPAs normally make ass-loads of money, so I guess he must be really crappy at his job if he needs the money this badly.
HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA
*catches breathe*
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
People will now find out the horrible things he does to animals during his free time...
While I think this is a bogus lawsuit, I have a fairly good guess as to what he is refering to.
In google search results, the brief clip of information below the link is often snippets of 3 or 4 different sentences (to show you that all of your requested words did in fact show up."
I'm going to hazard a guess that Mr. Maughan's result looked something like "Mark... Maughan... And Associates have... not paid their taxes... practice without a license... eat babies."
If that's what this is about... hes god a point...
I wouldn't put it past people to post links on their websites to the "libelis" (sp??) material just to get it ranked higher.
His assinine story is already the next to last item on the first page if you google him now.
---- You have been programmed by the Illuminati to not see the word ""!
Googling for "Mark Maughan accountant" gives the following as the 2nd result, I'm going to assume this is the search result in question since noone seems to have linked to it.
... Respondent was also alleged to have continued to practice as a certified public ... MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184) ...
Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz
accountant after his permit to practice public
www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
I suppose it does look misleading, but anyone familiar with google should know better than to not actually read the pages in the results.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
he might as well sue the company that made his computer and his internet service provider, and his parents
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
I did a quick search for my name and discovered THIS! Can I now sue the bejesus out of NASA?
I think it may be time for the US to seriously consider implementing a "Loser Pays" system in civil court. Basically, if you, as a lawyer, pursue what is found to be suit with insufficient legal merit, then you are liable for all the costs of the case, including the other sides fees, plus any penalty the court finds suitable.
If you as a lawyer don't believe that a case has merit, but the client wants to pursue the case, the lawyer can draw up a contract noting that the client has been advised that consuel believes the case does not have merit, and that they, the client, will bear the liability for all costs and penalties in the case.
The first thing that happens in a civil suit is that it is analyzed for merit, and if it found lacking, liability and fines are assessed.
Basically, it takes the profit motive for pursuing crappy cases out of the system. Why shouldn't lawyers pursue any case? Money is money.
And this still allows for anybody to pursue a case, but they have to assume the costs if the lawyer doesn't find any merit to the case.
+5 THE TRUTH
Oh ya, kill the messenger (Google) after he dies of a heart attack to bring you the best information possible; that always works.
Why doesn't he sue his computer manufacturer ?
Yes, while countless millions go on with their lives being perfectly able to make the distinction between "circular argument" and "leading question", you are there in the forefront making sure that an insignificant badly worded phrase coined centuries ago shall continue to wreak confusion for years to come! Well done! Carry on!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" really begs the question, do you really understand basic English? This is the question that I am begging.
And gosh, did you know that I B.A'd in Logic? Fat lot of good that did me with guys like you around telling me how to speak.
The reason he is suing is because "Surrender of license accepted." is shown in the description, while it actually is carried over from a section on the page which doesn't refer to his company. Though if you view the page you'll see that the company is actually on probation for 3 years. The site linked to is actually http://www.dca.ca.gov. Now, apparently, this guy thinks that if Google sampled some of the results on the page, and accidentally showed that, Google is somehow responsible for libel.
Personally, I think he's insane, but I can see his position on this because it does look misleading. I just hope he doesn't win anything.
Googling for my name reveals that, in addition to being an avid gamer, I apparantly played Greedo in Star Wars.
Think I'll sue Lucas for not paying me.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
I think the issue is the way google shorts the results in those little snippets. So,if you read the results only instead of actually clicking the link... you'll see things that don't sound flattering. But those are just random snippets from pages found in the search results.
The actual website may not even have unfavorable texst on it.
At least that's how it sounds to me...
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
That's plain bad logic.
If I offer you child porn with a disclaimer, no matter what's in the disclaimer, traffiking in the child porn would still be illegal.
There are many instances where you cannot be forced to abandon your rights by signing a contract saying that you do. And this Google search happens whether or not the 'complaintent' searched or not. He's concerned about other people doing this.
I've no idea who's right here, but your logic fails badly.
While I don't believe that a lawsuit is the appropriate response to this...I can at least understand where this guy is coming from. As a CPA myself, having your clients (and potential clients) being able to trust you and that your credentials are on the up and up is absolutely critical. As the use of google has become more and more ubiquitous, typing in a local CPAs name and turning up results alleging misdeeds, fraud, etc. certainly does not help to give "warm and fuzzy" feelings to clients.
It just spooks me out how you can get sued and lose a ton of money without anyone in the country knowing that what you were doing was illegal in the first place. It almost feels like getting convicted of a crime that they made up after you did it.
Google chooses pigeons who have larger wing span, since they peck faster, but they tend to be less accurate and moodier. However, if you bribe them with some bread, they'll treat you kindly.
How dare you compare this litigious schmuck to the Man in Black!
I'm not all that familiar with libel in legal terms, so here are a couple of questions I had off the top of my head - can you sue someone for the results of a mathematical equation? After all, PageRank is basically glorified statistics and mathematical wizardry. Furthermore, is it "libel" if a computer produces results based on mere data? Doesn't some human have to be involved in making the "statements" about someone for it to be considered libel?
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
suppose Microsoft funded this guy too?
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
Talk about digging for gold... His claim is pretty outrageous. Some people will do just about anything for money or publicity.
Buckethead
Funny thing is, if he gets a lot of press for this, he'll have "thrust himself into the vortex of public debate" and will have to prove a much higher standard of libel, "actual malice".
I wonder if this has ever come up, or if this applies retroactively? (Becoming a public figure as a result of the alleged libel)...
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
He broke the law by practicing with an expired license, failed to pay fines, and is now now suing search engines because the information was posted on the internet by the state of California. That's his own damn fault. People need to learn to live with the consequences and take responsibility for their actions.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
the company should just change their name. bad publicity begone!
I just googled for his name, and found out that apparently he's - get this - suing Google because he doesn't like what a Google search brings up!
If that isn't an insult to his intelligence, I don't know what is.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Do we have an examples of 'twisted' information (relevant to this case, that is)?
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Everyone should look at this as a lesson.
Talk about bad things being said about him... He just gave everything credence by bringing up those ridiculous lawsuits. At the end of the day, he is going to look 10 times worse than the Google results alone could make him appear... Add to that, that it is going to be much more widely known?
I mean, honestly... Does this guy think that the slim chance of getting lots of cash out of these companies is really worth the REAL damage this is going to do to him and his company?
Lawyers that represent frivelous lawsuits are scummy... The People that hire the lawyers are scummier.
Here's the offending page.
It's the Disciplinary Actions page in the California Board of Accountancy section on the California Dept of Consumer Affairs's website.
Note that Google itself does not list any specific disciplinary actions, except for the rather damning page title of "Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Google is your friend.
When google gives wrong info on me(other people have same name), i just add their stuff to my resume.
I gained a dance school and a few civil war books in my resume experiences.
It's only right that Google should validate the truth of every one of the six billion pages indexed by their system. After all, eager minds want to know:
Who really killed JFK, did Tammy really make out with Nick at the end of the high school prom, and whether UFO's, the Lock Ness Monster, bigfoot, black triangles and the chucacubra really exist or not. This could save so much effort and time wasted on speculation and controversy.
to Microsoft! lol.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I've done it quite a few times over the last couple of years. I'm apparently either a doctor or a quite well known computer scientist. Dayaum...... who can I sue?
Well Duh. If you don't like the (FREE) service with its obvious legal disclaimers against this kind of crap (e.g. use at your own risk) guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
But I guess telling him this would be like arguing with Archie Bunker, who was famous for saying:
"Stop Confusing me with facts."
I'd be willing to bet this fellow has made other (frivilous) lawsuits in the past.
from the article:
' According to the suit, PageRank, created by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, "reformats information obtained from accurate sources, resulting in changing of the context in which information is presented."
He said PageRank "scans the source, but in doing so, it's not a literal transmission. A literal transmission would be fine." '
Goodle can code how they want. This is the same kind of lame argument that is used vs. Microsoft and other major companies (who have their own EULAs) about not being happy with their product. These lawsuits are almost never successful. How in the world can expect hold Google to responsible for finding information created by others?
I only hope the case is dismissed.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I typed the name in and got some stats on a baseball player...
A baseball player... horrifying.
i find it interesting that it's not the statements themselves for which he is suing, but the "presentable context". it's like the day you happen to look like hell and then go get some milk at the store, but f*ck, their's the xgirlfriend, or the boss, whatever, as well as anyone else who might care to notice. they then take away an opinion based on that context and whatever other context they already carry. this is entirely human. as is being lazy and just scanning the first 3 pages of google without actually looking at the sources. which unfortunately makes it like the store running a tape loop of you on that bad day, over and over, right in the front window. now while google is an automatic system, and they are still reproducing material, does this mean that google supports the statements? or acting as an intermediary, like a newspaper in presenting content (we can't actually call them facts, or even really useful information any more can we?). if google had added at the top of the page that "we hear this guy is an asshole and blows donkeys and thought you should know too", then, maybe he's got his case. as it stands however, i think this guy's an asshole and he blows donkeys.
I am waiting for someone to sue a mirror manufacturer for showing them thier ugly face.
With the moo and the cow and the fish. Minesweeper Record: 7 sec
http://www.polo-gt.co.uk/mk4/mmaughan.htm
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I'm not sure about all of the charges, but the California Board of Accountancy does list the disciplinary action for practicing with an expired license. This is the first Google result for "Mark Maughan CPA" (without quotes). So as far as I can tell, the information DOES appear on the state board site, contraditing the article.
...blah blah blah blah blah blah Mike...
...Maughan punished for gross negligence...
At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen results before where it takes search terms from different parts of the page, and gives a misleading summary:
Even though the linked article might be talking about Mike Smith and Fred Maughan. I can see how something like that could be damaging to someone's reputation, and Google might want to change the way it presents summaries. But since the "offending information" actually does appear on the Board website, I'm not sure how Google is supposed to be responsible.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Everyone go here: http://www.markmaughan.com/. /. gratitude!
The email listed is taxxbiz@aol.com
Lets show him some
When I saw the headline I immediately thought, "why is the Coalition Provisional Authority suing anyone? I didn't think they had time or money for that..."
Boy do I need to get out of Baghdad...
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
A librarian is a bad example, because Google doesn't even understand what a person is...it's just a pattern-matching algorithm. You make them sound like some kind of a malevolent agent that refuses to stop telling big mean 'ol nasty lies...the truth of the matter is that Google just scans for whatever words you put in it, and if someone is publishing information that contains those words, it's going to turn up.
Furthermore, there are so many people in the world with any given name there's no expectation that just giving google a name is enough to be sure you're going to be talking about the same person.
This is like looking in the card catalog for your name and then suing the library for libel.
Don't be so quick to knock ridiculous metaphors, you had a really ridiculous one and you didn't seem to understand what was going on at all.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Excuse me, but if you went through the trouble of going to court with this, why did you not take it all the way? I mean, you won $1000, why did you call THEM asking for satisfaction? Why not take further legal action? I'm sorry, but if a company owes me that kind of money, I'm going to get it.
The next part is even more unbelievable. As big as SBC is, I highly doubt that some low level bill supervisor cares about your lawsuit and complaints enough to perform highly illegal actions (of which you have written, documented proof in your bill). Even more ludicrous is that a high level manager would care about something so petty as $1000 to fuck with you. Then, even if this did happen, why did you not take those bills to the Better Business Bureau or to small claims court again?
All of this sounds like urban legend... even the $1000. I would guess that a judge would fine them the amount you paid to have your phone unlisted, then ordered them to take your name out of the next version of the phone book.
IANAL, but I play one on
No, he typed in Mark Maughan CPA and look! What he doesn't want people to know pops up first!
Serves him right, maybe next time he'll do his job correctly!
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
awwww.... boohoo poor old Mark Maughan. big ol' mean nasty google has narrowed down billions of people in this whole world just to put a few nasty search results under his name. shall we give him a group hug? i wonder if this is just another microsoft-backed conspiracy or if he's just an immature idiot... or perhaps even both. who knows? maybe he will try to sue slashdot next, because if you run his name under its search engine, a few nasty (and true) things may pop up. and the world goes kersplash.
Matt Groening's other cartoon?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I have no idea about the state of gay marriage, but as for this guy, I found this info via Google.
:P I'm just reporting what I've found, verbatim, from Google. I didn't write up any of this information, I've just pieced it together and I have no idea how true any of it is.
By reading this, you agree not to sue me and not to use this information unlawfully
Of course, *since* I found it via Google, it may well be the same "false and misleading" information. Hell, I don't even know if this is the right guy! However, it is a CPA with at least the same first & last name as him, who I *think* is in the right area. It's apparently old info (from 2000), and when I looked under the accountancy firm he does business for, this was the business' only citation listed (this is also the only citation listed for him).
Interestingly, a citation for someone with the last name McBride is right next to this guy's (no known relation to Darl, but I don't have those Mormon geneology databases to work off of, either)
The citation is at the end of this post for formatting purposes. As for the email/address/info of this guy, if my research is right, his web page appears to be:
http://www.markmaughan.com/
Which lists the following contact information:
Contact us at:
10221 Slater Avenue, Suite 104
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 962-1600
Fax: (714) 962-8598
E-MAIL: taxxbiz@aol.com
What follows is the citation, exactly as listed on some California government server's webpage. I didn't make this up, I'm just quoting exactly what I know, without any expressed or implied endorsement of what they've said. Clearly, this person seems to feel that this information is "false and misleading," so... Anyhow, the following information is taken from http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/ma-me.htm
MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184)
BROWN & MAUGHAN, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529)
Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Revocation stayed with three years' probation and a 30-day suspension, via stipulation settlement.
Probation terms include:
30-day suspension from the practice of public accountancy.
Renewal of the CPA and corporate licenses, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Compliance with the citation order which contained administrative fines totaling $1,500.00 and an order of correction and abatement. Payment of $1,500.00 is due within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Reimbursement of $4,360.17 to the Board for investigative and prosecution costs.
Submission of a sample set of financial statements, representing the highest level of service rendered, between August 1, 1995, and July 31. 1997.
Completion of a Board-approved ethics examination with a score of 90 percent or grater, within the first year of probation.
Other standard terms and conditions.
Effective December 27, 2000
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, 5050, 5100 (f) and 5154; California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, 89.1.
-----
For reference, here is all the information you could want on Darl McBride, as has been posted several times to SlashDot before:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
S
Googling for "Bangungot ng bayan" brings up as its first hit the website for Philippine presidential candidate and former actor Fernando Poe Jr. The phrase literally means "national nightmare", with the word "bangungot" meaning a nightmare that kills you if you don't wake up from it. Fortunately, the site linked to is not official, as FPJ doesn't even have one (the only Philippine presidential candidate who doesn't).
Gee, have I just increased the site's pagerank?
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Okay, and he can really do that? I think not.
Google, Yahoo, and everyone else that he chose to sue had nothing to do with the creation and maintaining of those websites against him. It's not their fault that they are apart of the internet. What are they suppose to do?
Come on Mark, just go sue the internet. Really.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Bah, don't worry. We know our legal system is in the dumps right now.
Not much to be done really, at least not without restraining people from being stupid, and if we did that we'd ALL be in prison.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
he was told by friends and family
I'm not buying it. You just *know* he was egosurfing.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
PageRank is just a numerical representation of how popular a page is... it has absolutely nothing to do with content, and is just one of over 100 variables used to calculate rankings. Here's a description of what PageRank is all about:
New York Times Co vs Sullivan
In this case, it is well known that Google is a search engine that finds information on somebody else's website.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
...for disparaging my character by claiming a total lack of bravery. If there are any others out there like me, we might be able to form a class action.
I hope this will teach people not to associate Mark Maughan with that page.
In libel and slander cases, truth is an absolute defense. If the information if true, the man will NOT win, unless there is some MAJORLY huge change in legal interpretation from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on what I know about libel and slander law, I don't think the guy stands a chance -- and he shouldn't win, of course.
He needs to take this up with the original posters of this information. You can sue someone for libeling you (hopefully if it's not true), but you can't sue Xerox for printing the copy.
Stupid fscking lawsuits. How about this - don't be an asshole and you'll have nothing to worry about to begin with - END OF LINE.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Since a quick google of my name gives me a damning account of a murderer with the same name as me. Hmmmm, I must be entitled to millions!
If he was number one there would he sue too?
a n+ certified+public+accountant&FORM=SMCRT
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mark+Maugh
FWIW, CPAs are increasingly getting on my list on the same level as ambulance chasing (well, let's just say all...) lawyers, greedy doctors (most of them), county officials, DUHbya and his admin...
It's just that my first client from my start in the early 80s working on computers hired me to start a computer division - which seemed to go well until I turned over all my business clients to them and then they raised rates, started charging the inflated rates for hours NOT spent ("we'll base our billing on PERCEIVED VALUE!"), and I wrote the bastards off as greedy beyond reproach.
They all suck green donkey...eggs...
db
Cig:
ôô
From http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm
BROWN & MAUGHAN,
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529)
MAUGHAN, MARK G.
(CPA 38184)
Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Revocation stayed with three years' probation and a 30-day suspension, via stipulation settlement.
Probation terms include:
30-day suspension from the practice of public accountancy.
Renewal of the CPA and corporate licenses, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Compliance with the citation order which contained administrative fines totaling $1,500.00 and an order of correction and abatement. Payment of $1,500.00 is due within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Reimbursement of $4,360.17 to the Board for investigative and prosecution costs.
Submission of a sample set of financial statements, representing the highest level of service rendered, between August 1, 1995, and July 31. 1997.
Completion of a Board-approved ethics examination with a score of 90 percent or grater, within the first year of probation.
Other standard terms and conditions.
Effective December 27, 2000
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, 5050, 5100 (f) and 5154; California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, 89.1.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
If he was any good at what he did, he wouldn't need to sue Google for money.
Honestly, if you can sue P2P "search engines" for finding music in which they ultimately do not control who downloads or not, why not sue a normal search engine for all the pirated material, warez and serialz? Why not sue them for libel since they're propagating false and slanderous information while you're at it?
It's always a riot to see hypocrisy and lawsuit abuse come head to head. What a wonderful standard the RIAA has set for us.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
A.B.B.E.R.N.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Perhaps if you looked in a good dictionary you'd find it.
For the record, the word's Yiddish in this context. Literally, it means "penis," but is used as a synonym for "asshole."
Oddly, in German, it means "jewelry." One could draw some odd conclusions on etymology, were one so inclined.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I think it's about time Slashdot had something along this line:
----- -----
Slashdot Men of Genius...
Today we salute you, mister "begs-the-question".
Mister begs-the-question!
While millions can understand a basic phrase, you take the lead in misinterpreting everything.
Cannot make a distinction!
Your lack of logic ensures that phrases coined centuries ago will continue to wreak confusion for years come.
A leader in confusion!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" really begs the question, do you really understand basic English?
This is the question I'm beggin'!
And gosh, did you know that I B.A'd in Logic? Fat lot of good that did me with guys like you around telling me how to speak.
Slashdot Men of Genius
----- -----
I have to ask, do you actually know where that quote came from? For those of you that don't know your music, allow me to give you the low-down on those lyrics. Also, your quote is slightly flawed. It's actually:
That's a quote from one of the great country western songs, "Folsom Prison Blues", written and sung by the late Johnny Cash, better known as The Man in Black. That song is now one of the staples of country music, hell music in general. For those of you that aren't familar with Cash's music I encourage you to pick up one of his greatest hits albums. The Essential Johnny Cash is a good place to start. I thought I'd make that slightly OT point. Who knows, maybe it'll educate one of you tenderfoots. ;-)
IANAL, but I believe the reason we don't have frivilous lawsuits in Canada is that you can't ask for immaterial damages. And of material damages, more of them are covered by our government. For example, in a medical suit, there are no hospital fees to sue for, and you can only be awards lost wages above disability benefits. For libel, you can only be awarded a reasonable amount of lost business revenue.
Our legal system is still unnecessarily corrupt because not all lawyers are required to accept legal aid certificates. If lawyers were employees of the state like doctors and anyone could go to any lawyer (that still had room for patients) for free, rich people wouldn't be able to buy the law.
From another article:
But I agree with Oscar Wilde that if there's anything worse than being talked about it's not being talked about. Since Google isn't libeling me, I'm going to sue!
Permit loser-pays up to the loser's own costs or some pre-set minimum (otherwise lawyers acting as own counsel will be able to get away with paying one dollar every time).
:-)
In fact, it should just be "loser pays winner amount of loser's costs". If I sue MS and lose, I pay a few hundred or whatever. If MS pays me and loses, I get lawyer fees for their entire legal department on top of my award.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Moron. That's my opinion.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
He's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Mark Maughan pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Did you shoot first or didn't you?
Given that the california state gov't lists his firm as under investigation for the things listed below, I believe he's barking up the wrong tree:
b ro w_cor
:) He's just looking to squeeze some money out of the big guys.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm#
All google does is index and store. The information, so far as I can tell is accurate.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Google returned the following page when I searched for his name and CPA: http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm
.gov address so if it's incorrect according to the article then somebody screwed up elsewhere, not google.
It turns out that it's a
Google does not attest to the validity of statements on each web site; they merely index them. I don't think the guy has a clue, or a case.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
and thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
with windlasses and with assays of bias,
by indirections find directions out:
so by my former lecture and advice,
shall you my son.
You have me, have you not?
--Polonius, from Hamlet Act II Scene
Whenever I acquire the use of an attorney, doctor, or an accountant, I google their name first. I googled (searched outside of google as well) the names of my professors to determine their research interests and teaching style. I can understand this man's complaint. However, I believe his complaint is with the website owner (in this case the state of California).
Although this does bring up an interesting legal question. Does Google have the same responsibility that say the New York Times (haha, I know) of providing context for their reporting. Matt Drudge has demonstrated the power of the internet. Heck, I've recently run into two cases where people in our justice system have been disbarred|fired for misconduct based solely on their internet postings.
There is a deeper precedent here.
Imagine a future in which programmers are hired to place data to throw off intelligent agents parsing for good information. Do you have a bad credit history? You need to call a data munger. Did your business get a bad review in the local paper and it's now been preserved for all of history on the Wayback Machine and Google -- get a data munger. You see a data munger won't hide the information, but he will surround it with so much spamorific tripe as so to make it unparsable. The Orwellian future is now. Are you a struggling musician wishing to create some word of mouth for your band -- hire a data munger. Perhaps we should all jump on board the new field of data manipulation for profit.
A case study of the church of scientology newsgroup
I've created a simple business plan:
Step 1: Spam|Parse the internet at large
Step 2: (Blackmail|Obfuscate data for|plant news for) clients
Step 3: Profit
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
That seems to be the underlying theme in business these days *cough*SCO*cough*
01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
Libel has a very specific legal meaning.
Online versions of the dictionary can be found all over, such as here and here.
Also, it is a form of defamation, defined as:
There are a bunch of points that all the companies have in their favor:
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The folks at General Hospital will be hearing from my attorney.
How about...
mark_maughan.isgay.com
or
darl.isgay.com site.
Just stop it already. These people should be put in jail for coming up with such ridiculous accusations.
Can one make an analogy with libraries?
If libraries store printed media in which libellous statements (i.e., judged so by a court of law) have been printed, are the libraries then in any way guilty? Can they be sued? Can they be sued instead of the original source of the libel? Or only in conjection with or as some sort of accessory after the fact?
I would have thought not, but perhaps I'm wrong.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Yeah, right, that information will be:
Most likely it's gonna be true with such a zealeous litigation based on search results.
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Yeah... By the time this is over, anyone searching for 'Mark' or 'CPA' will see this as Google suggestion:
"Did you mean: Mark Maughan, the litigous bastard who tried to sue us?"
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
you'll find out he's been filing stupid lawsuits. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Mark Maughan. Going to sue them all again for this result turning up?
There needs to be a kind of Grand Jury for civil actions. Since there is no "the people" side, it would work as follows:
A complaining party goes to the grand jury and gets five minutes to rough out the basis of their complaint.
If the grand jury says it sounds like there is a rational case then the target of the prospective suit is sent the transcript of the presentation as part of the initial filing. About a month after that, the target gets five minutes to rebutt.
"Ammended complaints" must be cleared by a much-more-stringent process than exists today, in particular, the complaint must retain all of the elements presented to the grand jury.
If the grand jury denies your request to sue, you may sue anyway, but you have 100% exposure to all costs by all parties if you lose.
The grand jury may also elect to provide you with council for your position (e.g. endorse and SUPPORT your action).
This jury would have to be made up of 1/2 normal people and 1/2 retired judges. In short it would have to consist of some common sense and legal understanding. The grand jury may/must empanel experts relating to the field of contention. That is, technologists in technology cases, nurses (who are better medical observers than doctors) in medical cases, etc.
Lawyers are strictly prohibited to work on commission (none of those 1/3 of the results contingency terms).
Whichever party pays more for their lawyer(s) has to pay that disparity over again into the public legal fund from which the grand jury pays the provided council. That is, if the first party pays $1,000 for their council, and the second party pays $10,000, then the second party must also pay $9,000 to the civil procedure fund. Similarly, a company that employes a law firm on retainer (etc.), as opposed to hiring lawyers as simple employees, must match those fees and retainers into the fund. This (re)creates a pressure on companies and organizations to manage legal costs and avoid papering-over opponents.
There is more, but essentially, the "legal talent" needs to be made equitable in the financial sense, and there needs to be a "what a jackass" filter at the front end.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Is a disclaimer stating that google is not responsible for the content of sites in its index.
IANAL so I dont know but would this help?
Terms of service
There's a long bit about disclaiming responsibilities, limitation of liability etc. IANAL so perhaps someone could read through the legalese and provide some insight?
Has this guy even contacted Google to see if they will alter the search results?
If not, this guy is a litiguous fuck head, and should be treated as so in the courts. Mind you, he still doesn't have a leg to stand on in the courts.
According to these guys, An albatross with peck faster than a woodpecker.
Really Google. First a wacker search engine, and now false info about birds.
Tis all in jest, till someone loses an eye.
Karma whoring
Did you bother to RTFA? It appears that Google maims the information on the page in order to create a page summary. Of course, the parser is not intelligent, some sometimes unreleated words will appear in the summary and create libel. The page in question might have contained some neutral info about Mark and some terrible things about person X. Google cut all the text in the middle and it now appeared that Mark did all that terrible stuff. There is nobody else to sue, because nobody else wrote that, only Google server did.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
...Google bombing.
Googling for the terms yields my website + his. I turned the website into a consumer watchdog site concerning the macintosh community, but my #1 traffic still comes from people trying to find information about Mr. Campbell from Google searches.
I like it as Google yields a "free US Search" essentially. You can quickly find the good and bad about businesses.
I also like the fact that my highest moderated slashdot articles show up. Some, that are modded trolls, most that are moderated informative and interesting - this makes people searching for various topics interested in my websites.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The electric company for providing power.
Intel for making the CPU in his PC ( just guessing its not a Mac ).
Cisco for relaying the information across the backbone.
Hell, why dont we just sue everyone on the planet, get a judgement for 1 dollar for every human and shut down everything.
F-ing lawyers.. They are 90% of the worlds problem.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A few days from now, a search for "Mark Maughan" will include this slashdot posting, and lots of posts which are even less flattering than his initial problem with the State of California.
The internet is a risky place to throw tantrums. I assume Mark Maughan hasn't spent much time on the internet, otherwise he'd realize what he was getting into. How many blogs are writing nasty things about him right now?
That can't be good for his search results. If he (hypothetically, of course) wins his case against the search engines for indexing pages he doesn't like, I'm sure he'll find that the new search engine results will be even worse. Gross negligence and practicing without a permit may be bad, but the internet is far less tolerant of whiny bastards who sue search engines because they don't understand how search engines work.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Anyone who relies on Google for authorative source of information needs to have their head examined. Google is a search engine, not an omniscient information source. It is not by all means a godly entity. When people 'google', they should realize that each search result should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, Google is in the business of Search Engine, which means they have every right to return results their clients would want you to see.
Hello?
This is the new advertising.
"Stupid lawsuit against Microsoft competitor"
is cheaper than
"Empty Ad Campaign to try and prove that Microsoft's product is even on par with said competitor."
Grabs headlines, costs competitor money.
There is an Excel spreadsheet somewhere in Redmond that details the cost/benefit on that.
(Oh, and another Excel spreadsheet in Washington that tells carl rove what day to trot out Osama's body to get the most bang in November...)
Hey wait a minute. I thought penis in Yiddish was putz? geez, i need to read up.
Just a guy with an opinion
I think the issue at hand is not the content of the page linked to, but the summary text snippets Google extracts from the page. The user is suppposed to use these to figure out whether the page has information he might be interested in, not to figure out what the page says.
... kills ... eats ..babies" or something like that. They're saying it is not a literal transmission of the web site, but a new thing created out of the parts of the web site.
What his laywer are saying is that a web site might say "Mark Maughan kills time by working on his hot rods. His friends at the track eat his dust, cuz these babies really go fast." and the Google turns this into "Mark Maughan
Personally, I think it shows how robust the Google excerpting algorithm is. Personally, if I'm googling a CPA, I'm probably very interested in the possibility that he might eat babies, uh, I mean practice without a license.
The heart of the matter is what exactly do the extracts presented by Google do? Do they assert something about "Mark Maughan cpa"? Or do they simply assert that the words "Mark" "Maughan" "Kills" "Eats" "Babies" appear on a particular web page?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is no different that suing a phone book because it listed a phone number that once dialed cantains a recorded message saying your a 'lying, litigious schmuck'. You can't, or should be allowed to, sue the index of the content. The creator of the content should be the target of your/his complaint.
Some people would sue if they ordered HOT coffee and got burn when they spilled it in there lap claiming they were not warned it was HOT.
I am not real sure what the offending link was, but a search for Mark + Maughan + cpa goes to a List of Disciplinary Actions for California Board of Accountancy?s Licensees site. The site shows that he admitted his guilt and was disciplined in 2000. Among other things, he got 30 days suspension, three years probation, and had to pay a fine and costs of over $5000. This guy is a CPA and should be very knowlegable regarding the regulations that regulation his profession. According to his entry: "... Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses... failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board... failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license." It appears that Google worked as it should and it does not appear that there was any deliberate attempts to skew Google's results for this search.
Not sure what he turned up, but if his first reaction is to sue Google for it, I'm sure that saying anything unkind about the man may not be far from the mark.
Libel:
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
Slander:
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Someone on here called me an asshole once! You're all going to hear from my lawyer!
Now I just need to find a lawyer who can convince the court I'm not an asshole. This is going to take money, and Johnny Cochrane.
Why would you speak English? After all, America isn't England.
And hey, the word "Dictionary" comes from Latin, and America's not Italian. "Speak" comes from Old English (see above note on U.S. not being England). Hell, even the name "America" comes from an Italian guy's name.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
The issue here is not that Google is passing on possibly libellous content, but that it is /creating/ allegedly false statements by with it's summarizing program.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
you have a lot of people making web pages that display their opinions. Enough are out there to make a difference on Google. What is wrong with that? Seems to me like it is working perfectly.
If you've got a solid, obvious case against a big corporation that can and will lawyer you to death, buy insurance to protect you from legal costs. If you can't convince an insurer to back you, you can't convince a jury either.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Knowing Englisch, German and - to an extent - Jiddish I ask to mod the parent up. This actually is the connection.
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
My local ISP was bought out by an evil megacorporation, and they raised the prices and lowered the customer service standards. During the transition, I moved out of their service area and canceled my account. I kept checking my old email address to make sure nobody important was sending stuff there. After several months, I grew tired of this and asked them to close it. I also asked them to remove my personal Web page, since I had long forgotten my FTP password.
Unfortunately, they had apparently lost track of some of their assets during the buyout. They repeatedly denied that the Web server belonged to them or that I had even been one of their customers, despite the fact that the last bill I received had their name and logo on it. I pointed out that {formerisp}.com was registered to them and listed on their Webmail page, and webpages.{formerisp}.com resolved to their netblock, but they still denied responsibility. By cranking up the rudeness, I finally got my complaint escalated to somebody with a clue, it was resolved and forgotten.
Six months later, I got a request for an interview by a company that had pulled my resume off the old site. Sure enough, some moron had apparently restored a backup and my old site along with it! Google still ranked my old site above my new one in a search for my skillset. As you can imagine, I was pissed. But this time around, the evil ISP was even more adamant that the server didn't belong to them.
Time for some vigilante customer service! I meditated until I remembered my FTP password, and replaced my old site with an embellished tale of my troubles with the evil ISP. I used the most unflattering language, threw in some slander and libel for good measure, summed it up with a challenge to permanently remove the page, and pseudonymously emailed the link to tech support. Needless to say, it was taken care of most ricky-tick!
Yeah, but at least he isn't CEO of Infinitum Labs....
I have misplaced my pants.
No it doesn't: http://pages.prodigy.net/rodney.broome/terramain.h tm
Seeing that the articles discussing this nut are now on the first page of a google search, the article heading should read "[Lunatic|Nut|Litigious Moron] Googles For His Name..."
Just to wish him a nice day >:)
(Yes, yes, he'd sue again, I know, I know...)
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
It doesnt seem to work anymore. Maybe Google took it out to ease their /. load?(joking)
Bummer, that was one of the funniest things i've ever seen.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
Let me understand this? 1) Mr. MAUGHAN gets in trouble for not playing by California's Accounting laws. 2) California State (the address is a .gov address) posts his information online so that people like me don't get ripped off by this idiot with a less-than-perfect record.
3) Goggle spiders crawl the site and index it.
4) Family of this guy obviously doesn't trust him so they look him up on goggle and find the record of ill repute.
5) Embarrassed, he cry's foul and sues the search engine for doing what it was designed to do?
How pathetic; I can understand how dirty laundry online may effect his business. But maybe if he had done the right thing in the first place, he wouldn't be in this situation.
It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.