Slashdot Mirror
French Court Orders Google to Stop Competing Ad Displays
charleste writes "NPR is reporting that a French court has ordered Google to stop displaying ads when users search for competitors (e.g. if you search for Louis Vuitton, no more ads for Dior). If this holds up, wouldn't this affect most business models for free web tools?" CNET also has details , and information about previous cases.
Is going to determine and keep track of which companies are competitors? How the hell is anyone supposed to do that for every single company in existence?
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
The whole point of the judgement is that Dior (or any other company) couldn't buy adwords on Google targetting the search term 'Louis Vutton' or vice versa. Nothing to do with web tools or other such nonsenese. RTFJ!
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
How would France have the jurisdiction to affect the way an American company operates?
So does that mean Amazon shouldn't be showing what other books people who searched for a certain one also bought? They might be costing a sale of the original book if the add shows a book with similar content they chose instead if it.
Till they figure out that someone typing 'Goodyear' won't be able to see a 'Michelin' ad....
That's a self-solving problem, actually... it's the PAID advertising that's the issue, I believe. For instance, one of my company's competitors pays to have their product show up if someone searches for our company name... if it were in fact illegal to buy search terms that included another company's trademarks, then WE would be the ones to report it...all the courts would have to do is respond to complaints - same way it works now.
Unfortunately, Google won a similar case in the US, so our competitors can continue this practice that I, at least, see as a bit unethical.
You missed the point entirely. Google is allowing someone to buy "Vuitton" as a search term, and then permitting their competition or "counterfeits" to be displayed when the trademarked term is searched.
This has nothing to do with generic search terms.
What?
Before you get all huffty and high and mighty, please remember that there are Canadians dealing with problems in the United States stemming from the fact that while in Canada they did business with Cuba, and america seems to think that its anti-Castro laws extend beyond its borders into Canada.
That being said, yeah the French think they have the authority over everyone. The Quebecers are the same way. It was funny, them demanding that Pokemon produce French only versions, etc.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Crow T. Trollbot
it would put an end to those annoying Windows is better than Linux ads that come up everytime I use google to search for Linux help. wait a minute.. isn't this like making it illegal to have any competing product next to what your looking for? stores arranged by brand anyone?
Not necessarily. If I'm searching for Brand X automotive parts, I do NOT want hits for brand Y. I do want hits for dealers of Brand X, and reviews of Brand X equipment, and I expect to get them, not shills for others' imitations. If it then turns out that the dealers also carry other brands, I can find them through the dealers' websites.
Less is more.
ideas, products, places to visit ...
Not that everyone has the same opportunities, due to lumpiness in the space time continuum, conspiracies run by the Illuminati, the oppression of the proletariat by evil oppressors etc, but for those opportunies each person [outside a survival-only situation] *does* have, there are -- for practical purposes -- an infinite number of possibilities, different ways for them to expend their life energy.
Buy an iPod? Hey, that sounds good! One day I might.
Join a monastery? Hmm. Less appealing, to me, but you might think differently, spend your iPod money on the planefare to your new contemplative existence.
Write and send a postcard? Nah, I'd rather spend the same amount of time sipping some tea over a Dashiell Hammet book today, thanks.
And that's just about things that aren't even immediately related! The point is that we have finite, inexactly known stretches of time on earth and an incalculably wide set of preferences. Things that are closer to each other in form -- one clothing brand versus another, say -- may be more obviously in competition for mindspace (and money), but what about snowboard pants versus special tango-dancin' pants? Are those competitors? To ask that the government of France (or anywhere else) to determine exactly what is in competition with what else (and to what degree) would require magical powers that I more than suspect are far out of its reach.
For a country to pretend that the "market" (or any market) is simple enough to be intelligently or justifiably handicapped with such hamhanded, thought-constricting, interventionist rules comes close to parody. (In the Soviet Union, where the state was supposed to make intelligent choices on behalf of the downtrodden man who would otherwise be exploited by capitalism, it might have been a natural fit, though.)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Man, that sucks. Sometimes I search on Google for a brand name specifically so that I can learn about possible competitors from the ads. I think these ads helps me be a better consumer. I hope they don't go away.
I suppose the French government has decided that it doesn't want France to become like the U.S.; considering the shape the U.S. is in (and its people, myself included), it's hard to blame them.
Part of the U.S.'s problem is they don't really understand that the rest of the world doesn't want to be like the U.S.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
no need for that, just pull all physical presence out of France
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't host a Ford ad that says "Chevy Sucks" either. Just cos it's an enviro group doing the attacking doesn't make any difference there.
You're missing the point.
Let's suppose that you are Louis Vuitton. You've spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up your brand name. So now, someone is *PAYING* the sales person in that store to show customers products by Dior everytime they ask to see your products. If you were Louis Vuitton you would not be happy about that.
And to claim that people searching for 'Louis Vuitton' are merely doing a generic search for 'luxury good' is just plain stupid. If I search for 'Louis Vuitton' then I only want to see search results for Louis Vuitton. To display anything else is unethical.
But this is a pretty myopic view. How are AdWords any different than a TV commercial that says "Our brand X has a TCO lower than brand Y?" In other words, it is just a way for a smaller (or larger!) brand to fight for market share. What we're really talking about here is restricting freedom of speech to protect companies' profits.
I'm not big on clicking on ads, but occasionally I have been enticed to click on a relevant AdWord ad, and actually found a company that fit my needs better.
Companies with strong brands often charge the consumer a "brand premium" that has more to do with name recognition than quality. Corollary: there is probably a cheaper company out there with an equally good product.
I think this is more about bludgeoning competitors with your brand name than protecting consumers; after all, if the competitor is just selling knock-offs there are already legal remedies. We don't need to restrict speech to prevent this.
Except that as a consumer / web searcher when I search for "Louis Vuitton" (not that I have ever even heard of that brand) I *want* to see everything about it and everything like it.
... is just lame.
Seeing ads that are for direct and relevant competitors when searching for a trademarked term makes web searches more useful. Ok, perhaps the trademark holder should always get the first result - but preventing me from seeing competitor's adds
Next thing you know they are going to prevent sites that are critical of a brand from buying search terms - i.e. say some site has important dirt on Nike regarding child labor allegations - is it going to be illegal for that site to buy an adword to show up when someone searches for Nike?
Lame.
And you guys rant over bugs in an o/s as complex as Win XP!
It's not as though Slashdot has dozens of stories posted each day. How hard is it to be an editor for this site anyhow?
lets say your searching for "rackspace" hosting. you type "rack space" into goole. The first two ads that pop up are titled "rack space" , but they link to someother site selling solutions (the url is listed in small type under the link).
So basically companies are createing links with names that are incorrect in ads. I think thats where the problem is, if the name of your company is trademarked. I could put a "ford" link that links to chevy.com and that is very deceptive.
buyer beware.
I leave it to the courts to figure out if it illegal.
I think Louis Vuitton should not be suing Google, instead, it should be suing the companies who post the adwords that violate trademarks. For example, if Dior decides to have an advertisement appear when someone searches for "Louis Vuitton" then perhaps Louis Vuitton should sue Dior for infringing on their trademark.
If Dior put a full-page ad in New York Times encouraging people to buy Dior instead of Louis Vuitton, does that mean that the New York Times is responsible for violating the trademark, or would it be Dior?
Who cares what you're comfortable with?
Use a different search engine.
Oh, wait - they aren't "censoring" the results, they're "censoring" the ADs that pay their salaries.
(I use the term "censoring" loosely here...)
You certainly would be unhappy. But it doesn't follow that the government should outlaw it just to make you happy.
And to claim that people searching for 'Louis Vuitton' are merely doing a generic search for 'luxury good' is just plain stupid. If I search for 'Louis Vuitton' then I only want to see search results for Louis Vuitton. To display anything else is unethical.
By your logic, then, all search engine advertisements are unethical. Perhaps you think search engines should be run as taxpayer-funded public utilities, instead of by for-profit private companies?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why not just uproot and remove all administrative functions from France? Do their European business out of England, or Poland, or Germany or any other country. France's legal system is peculiar, to say the least. I'd say that it is a direct competitor to the lunacy that we see here in the US.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The French courts seems to have the wrong impression that it has absolute jurisdiction over anything and everything on the net. Just like the Yahoo/Ebay/Nazi paraphernalia issue.
They especially don't have jurisdiction if Google does not have any legal business presence in France and they can't really do much to Google otherwise if Google were to refuse (provided Google has no future plans of opening up offices in France). The French don't censor the internet and since they don't have legal presence in France, it's a bit hard to fine them and expect payment. Plus the US courts are probably not going to help the French courts if Bush has anything to say about it, since I'm sure he holds a grudge against the French.
Man...all this reminds me of that one Halloween ep of the Simpsons. "AHAHAHAHA! No no no, in francias...OHOHOHOHOHOH"
Let's suppose that you are Louis Vuitton. You've spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up your brand name. So now, someone is *PAYING* the sales person in that store to show customers products by Dior everytime they ask to see your products. If you were Louis Vuitton you would not be happy about that.
I walk into a restraunt and order a Coke. The waitress offers me a Pepsi. Coke has "spent a lot of years and a lot of money building up its brand name", and "someone is *PAYING*" the waitress to offer customers Pepsi products when they try to order a Coke. Should this be illegal too?
So, if I create a fast food restaurant called McDonalds, serving Big Macs and use all the same colors etc, you're okay with that?
As has already been explained, that would be performing trade under another company's mark, which is exactly (and only) what trademark should prevent.
But you want it to be illegal for me to tell my friend about a Burger King or Subway around the corner if he asks me where the nearest McDonalds is.