Slashdot Mirror
Google Seeks To Throw Out UK Safari Tracking Suit
judgecorp writes "In the latest twist to the saga of Google's tracking of Safari users, the tech giant has asked to have a U.K. lawsuit dismissed. Google says it is bound by California laws, so plaintiffs will have to come to the U.S. and sue there. Law firm Olswang is bringing the suit on behalf of British users whose Safari browser settings were overridden to help Google target ads; it argues that international organizations should respect the laws that apply where their customers live."
Consistent with their tax stance, at least. :-)
I read this headline as 'Google seeks to dispose of a suit (wearable) invented in the UK and intended to be used for tracking [animals] by people on safari' which made me wonder why Google would toss a (potentially) perfectly good stealth tracking suit. I wish I had a safari tracking suit...
Could Google form its own floating country and abide by their own rules?
This is simply a legal maneuver. The UK court is unlikely to approve such a request, and even though IANAL, I suspect old Google has several very competent attorneys behind this motion. When one is a defendant in the courtroom, it is prudent to ask for advantage at every opportunity.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
ok...here's the vid from Damn Yankees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kjQmgm0r4g
When I read the headline I thought Google had developed a Safari Suit with inbuilt GPS tracking, and they were trying to throw it away...
If that's the case, just wait till there is a trial in one of those countries that cut off your hand for stealing...
Ironically Google stood alone in fighting China and refused to censor...
That is quite an interesting rewriting of history. Google was censoring the results on the mainland China page starting in 2006 up until to 2010. They only stopped censoring in Jan 2010 in response to the Chinese hack attack against them
What a prime example of a gSheep. Apologizing Google with inappropriate arguments.
A burglar will defend itself with "hey it's not my fault the owners are not living in Fort Knox.
A carjacker will say "hey it's not my fault the door was not locked".
A theft will say "hey it's not my fault the goods were not bolted to the ground. "
Using your special kind of stupidness all three would be totally innocent.
What's wrong with you guys?
Stop pretending Google is above law. Stop pretending they are innocent and can do no bad and evil things.
Google is guilty. End of.
UK safari tracking suit?
Bullshit. You're still a thief even if my house happened to be unlocked at the time.
And to add, as the story notes they were self censoring the results.
A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?
I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.
In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.
But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
We see what happens when patent trolls are permitted to establish the venue for trial. East Texas, baby! The judges are in our pocketses, Precious!
As has already been pointed out, no contract trumps the law. No law permits you to effectively strip me of my rights by making it difficult (or possibly even impossible) to get to the court of your choosing. No law allows one court jurisdiction to rule the world. Google cannot write any contract or EULA that trumps British law.
They MIGHT be able to introduce California law into cases heard in Great Britain. I say, they MIGHT. They would have to argue the case, point by point, and wait for decisions on each point, to be made by the judge in the case, IN BRITAIN!!
Screw all those pencil necked needle dick freaks in corporate lawyer suits.
That said, I tend to side with Google, because, most of the time they are more right than other corporations. It's to bad that Google can't understand that unwanted tracking is unethical and immoral. To bad they don't understand that it should be illegal as well. If you want to track me, but I object, go get a warrant from a judge.
Wait, what? Google has no standing with which to get a warrant?
Case closed.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'm generally a fan of Google, but in this case they're way off base and should just admit they're wrong and pay the fine.
1. Have international web based platform that makes money by breaking laws in other countries.
2. Use your home jurisdiction and lobbying to make you immune from lawsuits.
3. Profit!!!
Why is Snark Required?
So, and I'm just going by American laws, but... why not go ahead with the courtroom proceedings? If Google doesn't show up, then the defendants win, and then - hell I don't know what they (the British system) do to those that do not pay up. Go arrest the higher-ups at the local Google office? Extradite the higher-ups from America?
Why is it a different set of rules for big corporations? If this were a case of, person A suing person B, and person B didn't show up to court, and lost, then didn't pay up, what do they do to person B over there?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software. I don't see google winning but i find the outrage being shown to be very uninteligent and lacking.
I don't quite get why they are getting fined for something that was allowed by nearly every other browser.
Do the police like using Safari or something?
Its not like the Safari cookie policies are law.
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software.
What license agreement? The only installed software in this discussion in Safari.
uninteligent
Speak for yourself.
Look, with every product in the world, you are subject to the terms, conditions, and legal system in place where the product is used/sold.
Software services should be no different. If you don't like the terms of a particular nation, block their users from using your service.
If a Japanese car's brake system fails in the US (like Toyota), they get sued where the cars were sold, not where the cars were manufactured.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The same approach applies to patent, trademark, and copyright laws.
Why in the world should software services be treated as the only exception in the world except to satisfy American megacorps?
Fuck Google.
Let them fight where their customers are.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
What? No. You've just invented the idea that the UK only recognises copyrights for works produced within the UK.
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine the UK court would recognise a copyright infringement regardless of that the author was in California. Surely, if you infringe the Californian's copyright whilst in the UK, you've broken UK copyright law and can be tried in the UK.
By law, that's correct - each country only recognizes their copyright and do not generally respect those of other countries. In fact, during the early colonial days, many publishers got rich (including early American presidents) by pirating English works - music, books, etc. This was legal since English copyright was only enforceable within the UK, and any other country didn't have to respect it.
It's only because of the Berne convention on copyright that there are bilaterial treaties regarding copyright enforcement. Of course, it's only the copyright holder that can complain, but it means that the other countries have to listen to the complaint rather than ignoring it.
Of course, it's only the copyright holder that can complain
I don't follow - is this not as it should be?
Or are you saying it's a limitation that there are no 'copyright police' to discover copyright infringements on behalf of copyright holders (contrasting with the way police do look out for burglars on behalf of the people)?