By the way, the "not merely fucking stupid" is part of the original clause, so the "sound, not" shouldn't take a comma.
On the contrary. The original clause is "it sounds plain wrong." The "not merely fucking stupid" is an insertion, hence the commas and the conjunction.
Don't hate that. And it's [sic.] a pet hate of mine too. %)
It is almost a law of grammatical discussions on slashdot that any post, most especially one in which faulty grammar is being corrected will itself contain an egregious error. Now you might put this down to the fact that simple typos unavoidably creep into typewritten text. I however am convinced that some demonic force is at work.
The simple past of 'to shit; is, in fact 'shat,' as in "the man shat his pants." 'To shit' is an example of a germanic strong verb which forms the past by use of an ablaut, such as: sing/sang; spit/spat; sit/sat; shit/shat... etc. Were it weak verb it would form it's simple past with the addition of a suffix, ie. shitted.
"Shat" just sounds fucking stupid.
It sounds stupid to you. That is not only because of your poor grasp of the rules of grammar, but because those who use the word in everyday conversation are not necessarily any better educated than you are. Thus you will likely not have heard the word used grammatically.
To people who have had normative grammar rammed into their skulls, sentences such as, "The man sit on the bench." or "The man shit his pants." or "I remember when he sing a very sad song" or, to use a weak verb, "that guy fuck me over bad" sound, not merely "fucking stupid," but just plain wrong.
It's going to be that way until we finally repeal the idiotic War on Drugs
If you were a betting man, which would you think has better odds: a repeal of the WarOnDrugs(tm); or legislation regulating or banning alternative currencies?
I've encountered this argument too, and it's true. It's also self-perpetuating. It will remain true as long as people keep on using the argument.
It's not really an argument, it's a negative outcome of the network effect.
Personally, I'd rather take the time to teach them to use something that isn't basically a single-source drug than have tying people to the Microsoft treadmill on my conscience.
If you have the time to teach them. Personally I put my ca.75 yr old mother on a Mac (talk about a single-source drug!), because I knew I was going to have to spend the time giving long-distance support, and I wanted an OS that does a bit of the work for me. I'm probably not as ideologically pure as you --got a macbook to the left of this linux box I'm working on and a windows box to my right --but I probably do enjoy using windows about as much as you do.:/
It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux...
Yup. That's sure been my experience.
... recommending people use 7 for Home Networks (as in, those not in the slashdot community) is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
No it's not. It is just as unreasonable to expect "Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer" to learn Windows, which is every bit as complicated to use as a contemporary *nix GUI. But there is an advantage, in that they are more likely to be surrounded by people familiar with Windows than Gnome or even OSX (which would otherwise be the obvious choice for naive users).
Yeah that's true, even if you find the objectively best way to do it you might not be able to do it that way because someone else got there first.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing of itself. The problem arises if it is not only objectively, but also obviously the best way to do it. In which case patent law is not supposed to prevent you adopting it.
Now patent law, as I recently explained, has an invaluable economic role to play. However in this game, it appears to me, that the law is being applied (and sometimes it doesn't matter whether you win or loose -- ie. what the legal rights actually are), mainly as a way to nudge your competitors.
Did you actually look at the figure in the Apple patent D627,790?
You misunderstand. I'm making no claim as to the strength of Apple's case whatsoever, nor any suggestions as to which particular design elements might be patentable or not. I'm merely addressing the notion, in the abstract, that a claim by an OS vendor that their interface is "intuitive" would render that interface non-patentable on the basis of obviousness.
Additionally I'm flagging the fact that courts have shown what is imho a very low threshold for the establishing what constitutes non-obvious for the purposes of patent law.
As is the position of the Trash bin which (for right handed people) would naturally be placed at the bottom rhs (ie. where you don't have to cross your hand across your body to throw paper). It's the first thing I correct on Windows (I'm sitting here on Xubuntu, a Macbook to my left and a Windows box to my right - so I'm fairly platform neutral:)
But the point I'm trying to make is that these kids of suits have a chilling effect upon competitor's development processes. If you always have to bear in mind the necessity of making your GUI's look and feel (defaults or otherwise) just that little bit different from the guy you know is gonna sue, you are not free to develop naturally. Put it another way, assuming that Apple's research on how humans work has resulted in the optimal GUI (and that would be a BIG call to make), then any move to distinguish your GUI from theirs would necessarily render yours sub-optimal.
This is why BigTech is constantly locked in legal disputes, not with the purpose of asserting rights (the point of law), but as a business strategy.
As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.
The interface, it is claimed, is intuitive to use. Designing (or inventing) an "intuitive interface," on the other hand, is anything but trivial.
And I might add, you have a bit of case law to read the help you get up to speed with what a court would consider to be "obvious" for the purposes of patent law. In any case, with this kind of suit, winning or losing isn't everything...
Didn't Windows copy the Lisa & Mac "trade dress"? How did that turn out Apple?
It ended up scaring Microsoft enough purposely to design their GUIs, until recently, to be as non-Mac like as possible. Bearing in mind that Apple designed theirs via human interface research, this effectively ensured the relative lower usability that plagues Windows (eg. push-up menus vs. pull-down menus --and we all know push-ups are harder to do than pull-downs). Arguably, Apple's recent success would not have been possible but for that unsuccessful suit.
No, I'm just trying to help you understand what is going on here.
If your going to mentally add '=' between the words, you might as well add 'is not' between them, or "strawberry yogurt" even.
Don't you think that's a tad disingenuous? If I were to write the words "3VI1 FUCKTARD" very few people would in fact read strawberry yoghurt in between them. The question is not whether reading '==' between the words is logically valid, the question is simply whether the association of words could influence a reader to lower their opinion of you.
If Google's output seems to associate their names with fraud, it's only because of input data.
Agreed. But the mere fact that any defamatory allegations a person makes are direct quotes offers no protection of itself (not even in most common law jurisdictions). Some additional protection (as exists at CL for fair reporting of court proceedings for instance) is needed. My understanding (and I am not an Italian lawyer, so beware) is that Google could have availed themselves of free harbour protection, but for the fact that they were not merely hosting the utterances of some other, but were actively synthesising these utterances into what amounted, in the view of the court, an original utterance capable of bearing defamatory imputation.
The persons (or charlatans) who don't like it should contest it with the creators of that data... Why can't the "defamed" do that?
They can.
instead
The most logical conclusion is that there's nothing wrong with the data.
Up till now your overly strenuous application of logic has been the source of your misunderstanding. Here logic has apparently failed you. Remember that mere truth is not everywhere a complete defence to defamation (nor should it be IMHO, but that is another argument). While I am unaware as to whether other defendants were in fact pursued, but the most obvious (logical or otherwise) conclusion is that Google is both easier to locate and has substantially deeper pockets than other potential defendants.
Do you represent the plaintiffs?
No. I'm admitted, but not to an Italian court. Moreover I don't practise, I develop software.
simple understanding of technology seem to continually baffle many lawyers.
instead
OK, with this I can absolutely agree!!! However, and this might not be immediately obvious, there is actually no question of technology per se to be considered here. What has to be considered is whether certain "associations of words" are capable of bearing a defamatory imputation (yes) and whether Google's creation de novo was covered by safe harbour provisions (no).
This is actually a case where the judges have not been baffled by the technology. Let me give you an example of a result that really irks the geek/lawyer in me:
In my jurisdiction larceny (a criminal offence) requires inter alia a non-consensual asportation. If you arrive at a bank with a sawn-off shotgun and demand money and take it off premises that's a non-consensual asportation. If otoh, a bank teller (being an agent of the corporate person of the bank) mistakenly hands you too much cash, it is consensual (and there is case law to that effect). You will (probably) owe the bank that money, but you will not be criminally liable.
Now there was a case (citation escapes me at the moment) where an ATM handed over more cash than it should have. The recipient was convicted of larceny because the judge deemed the ATM spewing out cash to be non-consenual on the part of the bank. In my view the preferable result would have been to see the malfunction of the ATM, installed and programmed by human agents of the bank, as directly comparable to a teller mistake, as expressing the bank's (mistaken) will. But the judge, I submit, was baffled by the technology. Though the bank should be able to rec
Copyright monopolies are antithetical to the free market, you dolt.
It has long been recognised that IP protection is particularly necessary in a free market "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Moreover, you ought to be careful about calling others "dolts"... people in glass houses and all that.
Imagine a free market when company A and B are in competition selling widgets. Company A invests $3,500,000,000.25 in R&D developing widget X. If there exits no IP protection, Company B is "free" to sell widget X: Company B enters the market with a $3,500,000,000.25 advantage, so it sells widget X at a cost which sends company A into liquidation. This particular, and widely known, market failure is called the Free Rider Effect. Although this example illustrates the problem of lack of patent protection the same considerations apply to other species of IP.
While there is copyright, there is no free market.
Where there is no copyright & friends (eg. Soviet Union) a free market cannot survive, since uncorrected market forces provide a massive disincentive towards technological progress (cf. Free Rider Effect). As OP said, IP is not necessary in any putatively "communist" economy, but it is in a capitalist economy.
The real decision will be made at the commission, which is lead by an ex-communist. So what do you think he'll prefer?
Were he not an ex-communist, that would be a no-brainer. He would prefer no copyright protection at all, you know as in communism (and as was the case in the Soviet Union). But since he's sold out...
Why not give up?
Because the unremitting whinging about how bad (The Government|Banks|EU|Financial Markets|Central Bankers|Scientists|Corporations|[insert personal peeve here]) is/are only serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should not expect the worse and then simply shrug our shoulders when THEY(tm) give it to us. We should expect positive performance from the institutions which represent us and then riot if THEY(tm) date screw us.
Type 68 + 1 into Google, then tell me it has a dirty mind.
What relevance do you imagine that might have to this discussion? Why would Google's "mind" be relevant? The question simply is: has any imputation been raised by a publication of the company that might cause damage to a person's reputation. Try to keep your replies pertinent!
Interpretation of a string of words created by statistical association without specific intention cannot be defamation.
That is obviously false. Google was found to have defamed plaintiff on precisely these grounds. Are you not paying attention?! Or do you just get off on making authoritative sounding, but obviously counter-factual pronouncements? And how have you come the the mistaken belief that tortious defamation generally requires "specific intention" or any intent at all?
You might as well argue that the dictionary is implying cricket players are criminals because it put the words so close together.
Now you are just being silly. If someone is considering doing business with you goggles your name and gets suggestions "yourname conman", "yourname fraudster", "yourname paedophile" it is possible, even likely, that these "strings of words" will lower their estimation of you. And, in fact, they may be wise not to do business with you, after all Google is telling them that yourname is associated in some relevant way with the suggested terms. And you're 3vi1 too!
People look up words in the dictionary mainly to understand their meaning. It is understood that individual words are arranged strictly alphabetically without any regard as to their relevance to one and other. Could you to find a less apposite comparison to the situation under discussion?
Turns out this law stuff ain't so easy for you non-lawyers after all.
By that rubric, they should also be liable if something comes up in the search results that someone deems offensive. Because they're "publishing" the search results and the titles of all the pages found.
Would that not be a form of citation? Read with greater care!
A pertinent difference here is that they are not merely referring to someone else's utterance here, but are generating an utterance de novo, based on what they may have "heard." Apparently 'gossip' is not an adequate defence to defamation at Italian law.
Congratulations on finding a way to ruin the internet.
Thanks but they are not due. Google is far better at that than I could ever hope to be.;)
Associating words in an algorithm to find the next most likely word is not the equivalent to making a statement.
If the particular association it can be understood by a reader as imputing a meaning how is it not a statement? If it is novel, and the novelty arises from means in your control, it is, for our purposes, an imputation raised by you.
Bottom line, you are responsible for meaningful and especially original (though quotation will not everywhere be an effective shield) "associations of words" you publish.
It's not defamation.
That's not your call to make. It's the court's. The court decided it was. It is. Ain't law easy?
The court is not thinking this through far enough, or just completely ignorant.
Perhaps you are not thinking this through far enough. Who do you think should pay for the damage that Google's algorithm has caused? The victim? The taxpayer? Why not the creator of the offending algorithm!? Personal responsibility goes a long way.
And my guess is, as pertains defamation at Italian law, the court's ignorance will be relatively lower than yours.
Well, its tough, but am I truly my brothers keeper?
Spoken like a true murderer! Just in case you don't know what it is you are quoting...
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
-- Gen 4:9-10
Slashdot Mirror
If only this guy had actually been appointed to a position of power ...
... then he too may have changed his tune.
By the way, the "not merely fucking stupid" is part of the original clause, so the "sound, not" shouldn't take a comma.
On the contrary. The original clause is "it sounds plain wrong." The "not merely fucking stupid" is an insertion, hence the commas and the conjunction.
and it's's normative.
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
ParseError: Failed to detect semantic content.
err ... Don't you hate that.
ohhh, so close
Don't hate that. And it's [sic.] a pet hate of mine too. %)
It is almost a law of grammatical discussions on slashdot that any post, most especially one in which faulty grammar is being corrected will itself contain an egregious error. Now you might put this down to the fact that simple typos unavoidably creep into typewritten text. I however am convinced that some demonic force is at work.
"Shit" is the past tense of "shit".
The simple past of 'to shit; is, in fact 'shat,' as in "the man shat his pants." 'To shit' is an example of a germanic strong verb which forms the past by use of an ablaut, such as: sing/sang; spit/spat; sit/sat; shit/shat ... etc. Were it weak verb it would form it's simple past with the addition of a suffix, ie. shitted.
"Shat" just sounds fucking stupid.
It sounds stupid to you. That is not only because of your poor grasp of the rules of grammar, but because those who use the word in everyday conversation are not necessarily any better educated than you are. Thus you will likely not have heard the word used grammatically.
To people who have had normative grammar rammed into their skulls, sentences such as, "The man sit on the bench." or "The man shit his pants." or "I remember when he sing a very sad song" or, to use a weak verb, "that guy fuck me over bad" sound, not merely "fucking stupid," but just plain wrong.
It's going to be that way until we finally repeal the idiotic War on Drugs
If you were a betting man, which would you think has better odds: a repeal of the WarOnDrugs(tm); or legislation regulating or banning alternative currencies?
July isn't that far away...?
No, but 1972 is.
I've encountered this argument too, and it's true. It's also self-perpetuating. It will remain true as long as people keep on using the argument.
It's not really an argument, it's a negative outcome of the network effect.
Personally, I'd rather take the time to teach them to use something that isn't basically a single-source drug than have tying people to the Microsoft treadmill on my conscience.
If you have the time to teach them. Personally I put my ca.75 yr old mother on a Mac (talk about a single-source drug!), because I knew I was going to have to spend the time giving long-distance support, and I wanted an OS that does a bit of the work for me. I'm probably not as ideologically pure as you --got a macbook to the left of this linux box I'm working on and a windows box to my right --but I probably do enjoy using windows about as much as you do. :/
It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux...
Yup. That's sure been my experience.
No it's not. It is just as unreasonable to expect "Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer" to learn Windows, which is every bit as complicated to use as a contemporary *nix GUI. But there is an advantage, in that they are more likely to be surrounded by people familiar with Windows than Gnome or even OSX (which would otherwise be the obvious choice for naive users).
Yeah that's true, even if you find the objectively best way to do it you might not be able to do it that way because someone else got there first.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing of itself. The problem arises if it is not only objectively, but also obviously the best way to do it. In which case patent law is not supposed to prevent you adopting it.
Now patent law, as I recently explained, has an invaluable economic role to play. However in this game, it appears to me, that the law is being applied (and sometimes it doesn't matter whether you win or loose -- ie. what the legal rights actually are), mainly as a way to nudge your competitors.
Did you actually look at the figure in the Apple patent D627,790?
You misunderstand. I'm making no claim as to the strength of Apple's case whatsoever, nor any suggestions as to which particular design elements might be patentable or not. I'm merely addressing the notion, in the abstract, that a claim by an OS vendor that their interface is "intuitive" would render that interface non-patentable on the basis of obviousness.
Additionally I'm flagging the fact that courts have shown what is imho a very low threshold for the establishing what constitutes non-obvious for the purposes of patent law.
That's just a default, ...
As is the position of the Trash bin which (for right handed people) would naturally be placed at the bottom rhs (ie. where you don't have to cross your hand across your body to throw paper). It's the first thing I correct on Windows (I'm sitting here on Xubuntu, a Macbook to my left and a Windows box to my right - so I'm fairly platform neutral :)
But the point I'm trying to make is that these kids of suits have a chilling effect upon competitor's development processes. If you always have to bear in mind the necessity of making your GUI's look and feel (defaults or otherwise) just that little bit different from the guy you know is gonna sue, you are not free to develop naturally. Put it another way, assuming that Apple's research on how humans work has resulted in the optimal GUI (and that would be a BIG call to make), then any move to distinguish your GUI from theirs would necessarily render yours sub-optimal.
This is why BigTech is constantly locked in legal disputes, not with the purpose of asserting rights (the point of law), but as a business strategy.
As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.
The interface, it is claimed, is intuitive to use. Designing (or inventing) an "intuitive interface," on the other hand, is anything but trivial.
And I might add, you have a bit of case law to read the help you get up to speed with what a court would consider to be "obvious" for the purposes of patent law. In any case, with this kind of suit, winning or losing isn't everything ...
What's a push-up menu?
The OS's main menu which is pushed up from the Windows "Start" button on the bottom left from about Windows 95 onwards if memory serves me correctly.
Didn't Windows copy the Lisa & Mac "trade dress"? How did that turn out Apple?
It ended up scaring Microsoft enough purposely to design their GUIs, until recently, to be as non-Mac like as possible. Bearing in mind that Apple designed theirs via human interface research, this effectively ensured the relative lower usability that plagues Windows (eg. push-up menus vs. pull-down menus --and we all know push-ups are harder to do than pull-downs). Arguably, Apple's recent success would not have been possible but for that unsuccessful suit.
You're being purposely dense.
No, I'm just trying to help you understand what is going on here.
If your going to mentally add '=' between the words, you might as well add 'is not' between them, or "strawberry yogurt" even.
Don't you think that's a tad disingenuous? If I were to write the words "3VI1 FUCKTARD" very few people would in fact read strawberry yoghurt in between them. The question is not whether reading '==' between the words is logically valid, the question is simply whether the association of words could influence a reader to lower their opinion of you.
If Google's output seems to associate their names with fraud, it's only because of input data.
Agreed. But the mere fact that any defamatory allegations a person makes are direct quotes offers no protection of itself (not even in most common law jurisdictions). Some additional protection (as exists at CL for fair reporting of court proceedings for instance) is needed. My understanding (and I am not an Italian lawyer, so beware) is that Google could have availed themselves of free harbour protection, but for the fact that they were not merely hosting the utterances of some other, but were actively synthesising these utterances into what amounted, in the view of the court, an original utterance capable of bearing defamatory imputation.
The persons (or charlatans) who don't like it should contest it with the creators of that data ... Why can't the "defamed" do that?
They can.
instead
The most logical conclusion is that there's nothing wrong with the data.
Up till now your overly strenuous application of logic has been the source of your misunderstanding. Here logic has apparently failed you. Remember that mere truth is not everywhere a complete defence to defamation (nor should it be IMHO, but that is another argument). While I am unaware as to whether other defendants were in fact pursued, but the most obvious (logical or otherwise) conclusion is that Google is both easier to locate and has substantially deeper pockets than other potential defendants.
Do you represent the plaintiffs?
No. I'm admitted, but not to an Italian court. Moreover I don't practise, I develop software.
simple understanding of technology seem to continually baffle many lawyers.
instead
OK, with this I can absolutely agree!!! However, and this might not be immediately obvious, there is actually no question of technology per se to be considered here. What has to be considered is whether certain "associations of words" are capable of bearing a defamatory imputation (yes) and whether Google's creation de novo was covered by safe harbour provisions (no).
This is actually a case where the judges have not been baffled by the technology. Let me give you an example of a result that really irks the geek/lawyer in me:
In my jurisdiction larceny (a criminal offence) requires inter alia a non-consensual asportation. If you arrive at a bank with a sawn-off shotgun and demand money and take it off premises that's a non-consensual asportation. If otoh, a bank teller (being an agent of the corporate person of the bank) mistakenly hands you too much cash, it is consensual (and there is case law to that effect). You will (probably) owe the bank that money, but you will not be criminally liable.
Now there was a case (citation escapes me at the moment) where an ATM handed over more cash than it should have. The recipient was convicted of larceny because the judge deemed the ATM spewing out cash to be non-consenual on the part of the bank. In my view the preferable result would have been to see the malfunction of the ATM, installed and programmed by human agents of the bank, as directly comparable to a teller mistake, as expressing the bank's (mistaken) will. But the judge, I submit, was baffled by the technology. Though the bank should be able to rec
Copyright monopolies are antithetical to the free market, you dolt.
It has long been recognised that IP protection is particularly necessary in a free market "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Moreover, you ought to be careful about calling others "dolts" ... people in glass houses and all that.
Imagine a free market when company A and B are in competition selling widgets. Company A invests $3,500,000,000.25 in R&D developing widget X. If there exits no IP protection, Company B is "free" to sell widget X: Company B enters the market with a $3,500,000,000.25 advantage, so it sells widget X at a cost which sends company A into liquidation. This particular, and widely known, market failure is called the Free Rider Effect. Although this example illustrates the problem of lack of patent protection the same considerations apply to other species of IP.
While there is copyright, there is no free market.
Where there is no copyright & friends (eg. Soviet Union) a free market cannot survive, since uncorrected market forces provide a massive disincentive towards technological progress (cf. Free Rider Effect). As OP said, IP is not necessary in any putatively "communist" economy, but it is in a capitalist economy.
The real decision will be made at the commission, which is lead by an ex-communist. So what do you think he'll prefer?
Were he not an ex-communist, that would be a no-brainer. He would prefer no copyright protection at all, you know as in communism (and as was the case in the Soviet Union). But since he's sold out ...
Why not give up?
Because the unremitting whinging about how bad (The Government|Banks|EU|Financial Markets|Central Bankers|Scientists|Corporations|[insert personal peeve here]) is/are only serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should not expect the worse and then simply shrug our shoulders when THEY(tm) give it to us. We should expect positive performance from the institutions which represent us and then riot if THEY(tm) date screw us.
The odds of copyright terms not being extended are about the same as me being struck and killed by a meteor tomorrow.
That's the spirit, give up without a fight!
Type 68 + 1 into Google, then tell me it has a dirty mind.
What relevance do you imagine that might have to this discussion? Why would Google's "mind" be relevant? The question simply is: has any imputation been raised by a publication of the company that might cause damage to a person's reputation. Try to keep your replies pertinent!
Interpretation of a string of words created by statistical association without specific intention cannot be defamation.
That is obviously false. Google was found to have defamed plaintiff on precisely these grounds. Are you not paying attention?! Or do you just get off on making authoritative sounding, but obviously counter-factual pronouncements? And how have you come the the mistaken belief that tortious defamation generally requires "specific intention" or any intent at all?
You might as well argue that the dictionary is implying cricket players are criminals because it put the words so close together.
Now you are just being silly. If someone is considering doing business with you goggles your name and gets suggestions "yourname conman", "yourname fraudster", "yourname paedophile" it is possible, even likely, that these "strings of words" will lower their estimation of you. And, in fact, they may be wise not to do business with you, after all Google is telling them that yourname is associated in some relevant way with the suggested terms. And you're 3vi1 too!
People look up words in the dictionary mainly to understand their meaning. It is understood that individual words are arranged strictly alphabetically without any regard as to their relevance to one and other. Could you to find a less apposite comparison to the situation under discussion?
Turns out this law stuff ain't so easy for you non-lawyers after all.
That's just idiotic.
Always a persuasive way to start.
By that rubric, they should also be liable if something comes up in the search results that someone deems offensive. Because they're "publishing" the search results and the titles of all the pages found.
Would that not be a form of citation? Read with greater care!
A pertinent difference here is that they are not merely referring to someone else's utterance here, but are generating an utterance de novo, based on what they may have "heard." Apparently 'gossip' is not an adequate defence to defamation at Italian law.
Congratulations on finding a way to ruin the internet.
Thanks but they are not due. Google is far better at that than I could ever hope to be. ;)
Associating words in an algorithm to find the next most likely word is not the equivalent to making a statement.
If the particular association it can be understood by a reader as imputing a meaning how is it not a statement? If it is novel, and the novelty arises from means in your control, it is, for our purposes, an imputation raised by you.
Bottom line, you are responsible for meaningful and especially original (though quotation will not everywhere be an effective shield) "associations of words" you publish.
It's not defamation.
That's not your call to make. It's the court's. The court decided it was. It is. Ain't law easy?
The court is not thinking this through far enough, or just completely ignorant.
Perhaps you are not thinking this through far enough. Who do you think should pay for the damage that Google's algorithm has caused? The victim? The taxpayer? Why not the creator of the offending algorithm!? Personal responsibility goes a long way.
And my guess is, as pertains defamation at Italian law, the court's ignorance will be relatively lower than yours.
How droll.
I don't know, I've always wanted to be a Global Identity.
Well, its tough, but am I truly my brothers keeper?
Spoken like a true murderer! Just in case you don't know what it is you are quoting ...
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
-- Gen 4:9-10