<story><title>Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide</title><url>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/bc-court-seeking-global-reach-orders-google-to-block-sites/article19212708/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bambax</author><text>This is insane.&lt;p&gt;The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., says the main defendant, Morgan Jack, sells networking devices that infringe on their trademark.&lt;p&gt;The defendant sells these things online; the plaintiff wants his websites to be dereferenced from Google.&lt;p&gt;The court agreed and asked Google to remove the links on all its properties worldwide (not just google.ca).&lt;p&gt;But what does Google have to do with this?&lt;p&gt;Why does the plaintiff not go after the infringer, to shut his websites down and&amp;#x2F;or fine him and&amp;#x2F;or get him in prison?&lt;p&gt;Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called &amp;quot;Morgan Jack&amp;quot; in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>shakethemonkey</author><text>This wouldn&amp;#x27;t fly in the USA:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google.&amp;quot; [1]&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07402727525/texas-appeals-court-vacates-order-commanding-google-to-hunt-down-third-party-content-destroy-it.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.techdirt.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;20140609&amp;#x2F;07402727525&amp;#x2F;texas...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide</title><url>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/bc-court-seeking-global-reach-orders-google-to-block-sites/article19212708/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bambax</author><text>This is insane.&lt;p&gt;The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., says the main defendant, Morgan Jack, sells networking devices that infringe on their trademark.&lt;p&gt;The defendant sells these things online; the plaintiff wants his websites to be dereferenced from Google.&lt;p&gt;The court agreed and asked Google to remove the links on all its properties worldwide (not just google.ca).&lt;p&gt;But what does Google have to do with this?&lt;p&gt;Why does the plaintiff not go after the infringer, to shut his websites down and&amp;#x2F;or fine him and&amp;#x2F;or get him in prison?&lt;p&gt;Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called &amp;quot;Morgan Jack&amp;quot; in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Natsu</author><text>Some part of me wonders what would happen if they were to turn off Google to Canada for a day and list the judge&amp;#x27;s phone number as the person to complain to.&lt;p&gt;(Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)</text></comment>