That is the lesson that KinderStart.com has learned as their case against Google is thrown out of court by Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The judge also imposed yet-to-be-determined sanctions on KinderStart legal counsel Gregory Yu for making unsupported allegations against Google.
Can giant corporations not only admit they are wrong but act quickly to make the wrong right? Yes they can. The National Pork Board has done just that, issuing a letter of apology to Jennifer Laycock over a big misunderstanding. If you recall last week an attorney representing The National Pork Board had sent Jennifer Laycock a C&D order over an alleged trademark dispute. They had claimed that a shirt Jennifer sells to help raise money for the non-profit milk banks was violating their trademark “the other white meat.” Her shirt read “The Other White Milk.”
Would you ever confuse breast milk with pork? The National Pork Board apparently thinks people will and has threatened to sue my friend, Jennifer Laycock, over a shirt that is being sold to help raise money for the non-profit milk banks. The shirt reads “The Other White Milk. “The National Pork Board feels it violates their trademark “the other white meat.” Give me a break! How does pork have anything to do with milk or breastfeeding for that matter?
I came across an interesting article today at News.com that explores the possibility of parents being sued for their children’s online activity. Well actually it is no longer a possibility but a fact with a recent lawsuit filed in San Antonio, Texas, by an assistant high school principal against two former students and their parents. The suit alleges that defamatory statements were made by the former students on their MySpace.com Web pages.
Frivolous lawsuits are more comical then anything else. It is sad that they waste taxpayer money, paper, people’s time, etc. but at least they are worth a chuckle… well most of them. The latest is a former AdSense publisher who is suing Google because she was removed from the AdSense program after clicking on her own ads, a definate no-no.
On Friday, Google will try to convince a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the heart of the company’s business: its methods for indexing and ranking Web pages. KinderStart.com originally filed suit against Google in March alleging that it suffered crippling financial harm after its Web site got dropped from the search engine’s index. This is not the first lawsuit of its kind as I recently wrote about another similar lawsuit filed over positioning in Google’s index.
Google has fended off a lawsuit filed by a California man who claimed his Web site rankings precipitously and unfairly dropped. The plaintiff, Mark Roberts, who runs two protein drink sites (including MrProtein.com), sued Google for breach of contract. Huh? What contract? In other words, because Google would not consistently list his sites on the first page of their results, he decided to sue them over it.
In the U.S. Government’s continual quest to battle terrorism and child pornography, they have recently asked Internet companies such as Microsoft, Google and AOL to preserve records of customers’ Web activity. Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, states that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller made the request last week at a meeting with industry executives. This latest move of course does not go unnoticed by privacy advocates who are complaining that the government may be intruding on the rights and privacy of law abiding citizens.
A Pennsylvania congressman has recently introduced legislation that would ban minors from accessing social networking websites such as MySpace and Friendster as well as forbid libraries from making such access available. The bill goes by the name “Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006.”
Long Island politician Jeffrey Toback who is a member of the Nassau County Legislature is suing Google claiming that Google is profiting from child pornography. The 16-page complaint filed in state Supreme Court in Mineola states, “This case is about a multi-billion dollar company that promotes and profits from child pornography.”