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.
Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer
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....
Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence. Pete fell off. Who was left?
Repeat!
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
"The court ordered Google to stop displaying ads for competitors of Louis Vuitton" Don't worry, Google can still advertise competitors of other products.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Oddly enough, when I did a Google search for "French Riviera" I was offered ads for vacationing in Italy and Spain... touche!
Both lawsuits have hinged on Google's signature keyword-advertising system, Adwords, which pairs text ads with related search results. For example, a Nike ad appears after a search for running shoes. Through the system, Google allows marketers to bid for such search-related keywords, including common branded and trademarked terms.
Louis Vuitton applauded the ruling, highlighting the danger that some sponsored search results tied to its name can promote counterfeits. "It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits," a company representative said in a statement via e-mail.
So Google was allowing other companies to bid on extremely vague search terms that display ads for companies related and somehow Vuitton thinks thats dangerous?
Give me a break. Make your product superior to the others and people will see the alternative and buy yours. I'm sorry if the "counterfeits" will end up beating you out. Maybe yours isn't worth 100x as much as theirs just because of your name.
Personally I don't even see the ads. They are there but they are in the corner of my eye. I have certainly never clicked on one and I don't know of anyone who has. Get over it.
French courts ruled against Yahoo!, and Yahoo! told them to shove it. The U.S. also gave Yahoo! the green light. It is quite ridiculous for the French to stifle competition. If people do not like it, they do not have to use Google. I do not hear many people, besides the French gov't. complaining. Do the French people, themselves, feel this way?
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
What does French authority have over Google? What if Zimbabwe issued an order that Google do something? Or what about my grandmother? If Google doesn't comply, what authority does France have to sanction Google?
God spoke to me.
This is moronic. Who's to say who's a competitor? Doesn't this invite all sorts of abuse by corporations who lack morals ( ie: all of them )?
*rubs temples*
I understand this is a "new" technology, and I appreciate how much catch up judges have to make effective rulings, but this indicates to me that they don't grasp how things work.
Maybe the court transcripts reveal more than the simple blurb. Perhaps there's simply more to this than the article suggests.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Will it be illegal for M$ to push "how to migrate from linux to windows" in their sponsored results @ msn search?
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.
February 13, 2004
l e. shtml
Google bans ads that criticize cruise ships
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO - Online search engine leader Google has banned the ads of an environmental group protesting a major cruise line's sewage treatment methods, casting a spotlight on the editorial policies that control the popular Web site's lucrative marketing program.
Jim Ayers, Pacific Region director for Oceana, said from his Juneau home that he was shocked that Google would censor his group's ads based on corporate bias.
Washington D.C.-based Oceana said Google dropped the text-based ads displayed in shaded boxes along the right side of its Web page because they were critical of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.
http://juneauempire.com/stories/021304/sta_goog
Is fine with me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
There's no reason why Google should have to take this kind of abuse.
They should shut down google.fr (but keep control of the domain name so no one takes it over), and maybe even block French IPs from accessing the rest of Google.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Google doesn't have to stop returning search results of competitor's pages that mention the brand requested by the searches. They just have to stop returning ads purchased by those competitors when the brand is requested. This isn't so surprising: we'd be scandalized if you could just pay Google to return your website among the search results for your competitor. So the paid placement is separated into ads. But we'd also be suspicious if we asked a vendor of both Coke and Pepsi for a "Coke", and they offered us Pepsi instead, or even brought it up as an alternative in the transaction - even though they're entirely free to promote whichever product they stock. The entire issue is whether Google is diluting the association of the brand's unique mark by delivering its competitors with the same association. I'm not sure that just prohibiting mention in even clear ads is the answer. Maybe just returning an ad for the requested brand, prioritized among associated competitors who've purchased placement in clearly marked advertising separate from "non-ad" results. But as consumers, this ruling protects us from "you ask for this, and they give you that" bait & switch.
--
make install -not war
"Since Google's normal ad service has been declared illegal in France, Google will cease such activities in France. The most technically feasible method of doing this is to make Google's service inaccessible from all IP netblocks assigned to the geographic area of France and any entities based in France who, were they to access Google, would do so under the aegis of French law. In addition we will no longer be accepting ad placement from companies where the transaction would be governed by French law."
If I go to a store and ask for "Louis Vuitton" is it trademark infringement if the sales person also shows me Dior or some other maker's products? I would argue that as long as Google's ads do not mislead the user into thinking that the link is for "Louis Vuitton" then it is no different than a store clerk showing me a competing good.
All Google is doing is recognizing that people use specific terms to represent generic actions. I may search for "Louis Vuitton" but really intend to look at luxury goods of a wide range of makers -- the trademark name is only being used to find hits in the category. As long as the ads don't pretend to offer something they don't (bait and switch), I would argue that Google is serving the purpose of search.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Yet somehow the french are smart enough to know that Milla Jovavich is slavic, not french.
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.
No, this is like an ad for Dior being placed next to a Vuitton display.
Here's a true story. I posted this in another article, but I'll post it here for posterity: a few miles from where I live, there's a Ford (or Toyota, I can't remember which) dealership. Right next to it is a billboard advertising another Ford (again, or Toyota) dealership, with the text "Drive a few extra miles and save". It's the same exact type of thing as the situation with Google--this sign even plays on the fact that it's right next to a competing dealership selling the same models.
It's perfectly legal and no different than the situation with Google.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
...is "competitors of Company XYZ"?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Here is my main issue with this judgement.
I, as a consumer frequently SERACH FOR competitors of known brands. Often i am looking to see what the market is because i am dis-satisfied with the brand i am familiar with. Putting in search terms such as "geico competitors" you will not get any relevant listings.
I found the most effective means of finding other product offerings in a related market is by simply looking through the ad placements on google when searching simply for the brand name i recognize.
By ordering google to stop disaplying compeitotrs ads, they have effectivly denied me any solid capability to find out about what competing products there are in the marketplace, hence hindering compitition, and promoting monopolistic control.
It is a terrible day when trademark protection extends as far as information services. Will they make it illegal to place ads for comepting companies next to each other in newspapers? Will they make it illegal to place gap ads next to macys ads on Television?
This is a ridulous abuse of governance that only hinders the tax-paying public, and stifles economic growth through compitiion, as well as inovation amogst service providers.
Amazing. Whats next.... patents on 1's and 0's ??!!
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
This just in - a French court has ordered Google to stop displaying the text "We Surrender!" in large flashing letters whenever a user types in the search terms "Germany" and "France".
#DeleteChrome
Oui. Ce serait une idée très bonne.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
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
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.
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.
This is no different than the practice of spiffs or push money to motivate the sales force to sell a particular product. I agree that it is not pleasant for the maker (and may be unethical toward the consumer), but paying the retailer for favored position, promotion, etc. is widespread.
If I search for 'Louis Vuitton' then I only want to see search results for Louis Vuitton.
Then you and I are different in our search habits. I sometimes use a brand name that I know as a convenient term to find hits in a category (especially to find reviews of products in the category or retailers in the category). Category terms are sometimes harder to create and more ambiguous then brand names. Perhaps Google needs a search modifier or preference to distinguish between "strict" (your style) and "loose" (my style) of searches.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
We have Mardi Gras, which I will put up against any other public drunkenness holiday around the world.
I'll see your Mardi Gras, and raise you one Hogmannay.
Hah! Trying to out puiblic-drunkeness the Scots! Tsk!
This is where the serious fun begins.
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?
Over the last summer I was managing an adwords campaign for a small art gallery. When we noticed that entering in our gallery name came up with an adwords ad for a competing gallery whom we had never heard of, I was tasked with finding out how to fix this. We considered suing the other gallery, suing whoever else we could (this was in LA, mind you), or my solution: have Google fix it. I emailed the Google support folks and they responded saying basically that we should just deal with it ourselves and they can't do anything to take those ads away. So, I wrote a nice email to the competing gallery explaining my issue. The next day, no more ad! Since this is small-time compared to the big companies involved here, I don't know if this situation applies, but who knows... Maybe I should have sued Google so I can pay off my college bills :)
1) block French people from using Google, blame government
2) Wait for people to overthrow said government
3) sell advertising indiscriminately, and profit.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
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?
This is the basic mode for opening new stores for these two chains - find out where a reasonably well run drug store or bake shop is with plenty of traffic, then open up a block away. Usually buries the competitor in a matter of months. Perfectly legal.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Actually this is exactly the same as a practice that has existed in the paper yellow pages for almost it's entire existance. The small entries are in alphabetical order, but the display adds can be placed anywhere. If you wany your add next to that of your biggest competitor, you just have to pay for the privilege.
Google is not redirecting the link to the webpage - the equivalent to having a sales person redirect the customer. They're allowing the competitor to have an ad appear in a separate section when a keyword - in this case a prime competitors name, is entered. In most of the world this is common practice in all forms of advertising.
France has a law that forbids comparison in ads and is extending it to include Web Searches. I don't think it's right, but since it's the law, unless Google can find a loophole, they'll have to comply in France. They'll also have to comply in other places where similar laws exist.
...carrier dead.....
Then push the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
Did you mean: french military defeats
I think that is their REAL issue with Google
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
I just checked. If you search google.fr for "Louis Vuitton" no ads are shown, while both google.com and google.co.uk display some ads.
So it seems google is complying with the court order using google.fr. It could be the case that nobody bought "Louis Vuitton" ads at google.fr, but that seems particularly unlikely as Louis Vuitton itself is a French company.
C'mon, you don't think Page and Brin could conquor France?
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.