I would still say they don’t really understand the technology - as the dissenting opinion says, the original injunction was against setting up a website, which google had nothing to do with. They aren’t setting the precedent that many of the people in the thread seem to think they are setting, but I do think they are inadvertently setting a precedent that confuses Google and the internet and makes them one and the same.
I don’t think that delisting being effective is enough. Could they take me to court and get a ruling that I have to destroy the offending company’s facilities? That would be effective at stopping them (if I could do it, there are a number of other reasons why they couldn’t get this ruling), but it has nothing to do with me. They have to prove that this is someone on Google, that they are aiding and abetting. As the dissenting opinion says, the same reasoning could go after the suppliers of the offending company and make them not sell to that company anymore, or go after UPS for shipping for them. I think that’s an unacceptable hazard to submit UPS to, basically getting them wound up in who knows how many lawsuits, and I similarly think it is unacceptable to let Google get caught up in everyone else’s disputes.
Basically company E is trying to stop company D from selling knockoffs of their stuff. Basically D is operating over the internet, E can’t find them. They can get rulings saying D is violating their IP rights, but they can’t find a way to enforce them. I think the courts felt that outweighed these other considerations. But I don’t think E’s complaint ought to turn Google into the internet police.
(and yet I still hit like on your comment, because reading the ruling is the right thing to do)
