Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:00:00 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
<redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fcef015ndbjs7hfdkfib6uai3chgmb8gqc@4ax.com...
>> He key part here I believe is:
>>
>> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
>> another information content provider."
>>
>> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
>> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
>> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.
>
>How is Google not an interactive computer service?

Google is, but the law states the information has to come to them
(google) via *another* interactive computer service. Apparently the
human poster meets that description. This prevents the guys at google
outright libeling anybody just because they are a interactive computer
service - the libel has to come from somewhere else first to be
protected.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On 8 Feb 2005 05:12:15 -0800, "Rigo Muniz" <bengaltiger14@juno.com>
wrote:

>Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
>Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
>world.
>Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
>values.
>
>For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
>from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
>about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
>or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
>corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
>filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
>You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
>world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
>internet.

Well I don't care if they only go after you. It's when they start
screwing up the NG for *everyone* that I have a problem.

<hides under desk>

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:47 +1100, Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote to
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and news.groups:

>[Xposted to news.groups, where this is more on-topic. Followups set
>there as well, as I don't wish to contribute to the current swamp of
>sewerage.]

<snip>

Actually, this is off-topic for news.groups. It's on-topic over on
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or news.admin.net-abuse.misc. If you have a
policy change to suggest, then news.admin.net-abuse.policy would be
better than either of those groups.

Followups left set to news.groups; I'll let the earlier poster re-set
them more appropriately.

--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http/onag.pinetree.org>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Horace" <horace@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:36pofkF5414t6U1@individual.net...
> Ah, in the UK, 'QC' can either mean a Queen's Counsel (a Lawyer with
> considerably higher qualifications than a mundane 'Solicitor') or a brand
> of cheap sherry.

And, based on its merits, this legal action, if it exists other than in the
mind of the OP, will wind up in the WC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

[Posted, & also emailed to Douglas McDonald]

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:
>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>> publisher of slander and defamation.

Great work, Douglas.
Maybe a court case will convince Google to start enforcing their
terms-of-service, & to assign a technical staffer to secure their
service from abuse by their users.

I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would you please
email me to tell me what I need to do?

Given that you're already dipping into your wallet for a lawyer, one
really useful thing you might consider doing would be to ask him/her to
draw up some form of legal notice that a victim could fax or snail-mail
(via registered post) to Google, each time one of us is forged or
defamed by their user, asking them to cancel the posts concerned, & to
delete the originating account, per their terms of service. This would
either cause them to actually deal with the problem instead of ignoring
it, or would give us a huge pile of court evidence that Google have been
*knowingly* enabling defamation & forgeries by their users.

>You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
>of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
>are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
>the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally.

I am not a lawyer, (nor do I play one on TV), but I imagine that simply
making a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS - rather than ignoring
it they way they currently do - would be sufficient to provide them, (or
any other news provider) with a 'good faith' defence against defamation
or libel suits.

> Luckily, although
>UK law is a bit silly about this,

Actually, Douglas & I are both Australians, although it's true that our
legal system is very similar to the British system.

> I doubt you'll be successful under US
>law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.

So far, both Australian & British courts have taken the attitude that,
for the purposes of libel / defamation law, website operators & Usenet
news services are considered to be worldwide 'publishers'. As I
understand it, the argument is that (for example), if an Australian is
defamed or libelled via a website that's accessable to the general
public in Australia, then an offence has, by definition, taken place in
Australia, & is consequently within the jurisdiction of Australian
courts.
As for enforcing any judgement we might obtain from an Australian court,
I suspect that the solution would be to track down any corporate
presence that Google Ltd might have in Australia, & make the initial
case against them, as representatives of the American parent company.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tuesday, in article
<c2nh011a863rc3i71e7nrlfhpqs0v685o1@4ax.com>
nomail@hotmail.com "Owamanga" wrote:

> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
> work?
>
> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>
> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?

It seems to have escaped your notice that google.com.au exists, and
certainly appears to be located Down-under. As such, it could be
bankrupted; what would the SEC think about /that/ (they already seem to
have a rather circumspect attitude towards Google)?

Ditto for google.co.uk.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com>
stated that:

>"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>> to the court date.
>
>Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
>Australia,

Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website, &
the verdict held:

[Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones]
<http/www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_text.html>

Coincidentally, Mr Gutnick lauched, & won, his case against Dow Jones
right here in my home city. Maybe I should give him a call & get the
name of his laywer...

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:04:05 +1100, Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:

>Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com>
>stated that:
>
>>"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>>> to the court date.
>>
>>Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
>>Australia,
>
>Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
>American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website, &
>the verdict held:
>
>[Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones]
><http/www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_text.html>
>
>Coincidentally, Mr Gutnick lauched, & won, his case against Dow Jones
>right here in my home city. Maybe I should give him a call & get the
>name of his laywer...

Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
work?

....eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
Australian Bailiffs on board.

Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. MacDonald,

I'm not sure how to respond to such a poorly-worded message.

Your charge that Google has "sought to ignore common courtesy" is a
bit defamatory in itself, since I really don't think you'll ever be
able to prove that their board of directors sat around a table and
said "Okay, we need to find a way to ignore common courtesy, so let's
come up with something."

Also, it is called a "lawsuit," not a "law suite." (By the way, "news
groups" are usually referred to as "newsgroups" these days.)

And it seems spurious that you are motivated by the notion that
they've been doing this "for too long now." Shouldn't you be more
bothered by the idea that they are doing it AT ALL, or perhaps the
fact (which you would have to prove) that they've been given fair
warning and a reasonable time period to take their own corrective
steps? You should be more specific.

Lastly, to give any credibility to this whatsoever, you should publish
the name of the law firm that is assisting you -- not your personal
Hotmail address. Otherwise, it's just another empty rant.

HD



On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>publisher of slander and defamation.
>
>For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>to the court date.
>
>Douglas MacDonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to
> usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is
> nobody involved. The material is originated by someone not associated
> with Google. Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer
> should get a court order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to
> reveal who they are.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue
> the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
(according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
communicating information.

Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.

I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far it's
a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations and
holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".

They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
expensive to stop this little Aussie.

I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
the bastard, it'll happen.

Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Good Luck Doug.

--
Dave




"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:36ssqsF55os7tU1@individual.net...

| You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
| Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
| posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
| protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
| (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
| publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
| communicating information.
|
| Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
| my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
| my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
| out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.
|
| I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
| later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far it's
| a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations and
| holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".
|
| They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
| minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
| this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
| is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
| expensive to stop this little Aussie.
|
| I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
| prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
| attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
| card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
| someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
| agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.
|
| Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
| methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
| takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
| sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
| complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
| contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
| took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
| the bastard, it'll happen.
|
| Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
| am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
| enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
| in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
| be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
| we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.
|
| Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:28:50 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
>prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
>attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
>card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
>someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
>agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Maybe you should be suing her employers instead of living your life on
usenet. Unless there is some truth in it you would have a much better
case against them...innocent until proven guilty, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
> communicating information.

Your $760 legal opinion is completely absurd, lacking any basis whatsoever
in the technical reality of how the process works.

Yes, I am an expert in the field.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward
>> posts to usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for
>> retirieval. There is nobody involved. The material is originated
>> by someone not associated with Google. Those are the people you need
>> to track down. Your lawyer should get a court order to get Google
>> (or better, the offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.
>>
>> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should
>> persue the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept
> anonymous posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it
> to another protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different
> port is (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day
> equivilant of publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the
> purpose of communicating information.
>
> Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
> my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
> my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to
> find out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.
>
> I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
> later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far
> it's a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations
> and holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".
>
> They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
> minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
> this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
> is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
> expensive to stop this little Aussie.
>
> I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
> prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
> attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
> card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
> someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
> agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.
>
> Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
> methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
> takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to
> conceal sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a
> process for complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9
> months to contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my
> store before I took it down. I really don't care if it takes another
> 9 years to find the bastard, it'll happen.
>
> Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
> am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
> enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is
> fortunate in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do
> exist which can be used by individuals to defend themselves and the
> Free Trade Agreement we have with the USA makes it easier to cross
> national legal boundaries.
> Doug

Ah. I see. _That_ kind of small car.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2/8/05 4:28 PM, in article 36ssqsF55os7tU1@individual.net, "Ryadia"
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:


> They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
> minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
> this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
> is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
> expensive to stop this little Aussie.
>
> Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
> methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
> takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
> sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
> complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
> contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
> took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
> the bastard, it'll happen.
>
> Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
> am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
> enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
> in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
> be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
> we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.
>
> Doug
I am going to wade in on this one time only with just a few comments (I
don't wish to enter the full scale war)!
First, I would be every bit as upset and angry as you if something like this
happened to me and I hope you find the bastard. But -
Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that just maybe,
that is why the name Google comes up more than the real culprit? Those deep
pockets also mean that they can hire more lawyers than perhaps you can!
Finally, if your suit or anyone else's similar suit were successful would
any of us like the new Internet that would exist afterward? I picture all
ISP's and all of the Google's of the world with teams of censors cleaning
the Internet of of any hint of any discouraging word. Half of the posts
currently on Usenet would never make it. And who would pay for all of that -
all of us would.
Why not spend your money on technical experts who can actually determine who
the bastard is so that you can sue the real villain?
Chuck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts
>> to usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval.
>> There is nobody involved. The material is originated by someone not
>> associated with Google. Those are the people you need to track down.
>> Your lawyer should get a court order to get Google (or better, the
>> offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.
>>
>> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue
>> the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
> communicating information.

I do understand the reasoning, I don't believe a court will hold it up. Google
will defend itself as being a well known search engine and repository of
information both right and wrong.

--did you track down the originating ISP?
--did you ask them to remove the offending info?
--did you ask your lawyer to get a court order against that ISP to reveal who
the IP belonged to?

> Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
> my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
> my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
> out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.

My opinion stands that the originator is the problem, not Google. Leave it at that.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
> prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
> attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
> card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
> someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
> agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.


If she was incorrectly dimissed, then sue her former employer. Did you bring
this up with your lawyer?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <BE2EB0AA.192DA%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>, C Wright
<wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

> But - Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that
> just maybe, that is why the name Google comes up more than the real
> culprit? Those deep pockets also mean that they can hire more
> lawyers than perhaps you can!

Possibly the lawyers are hoping Google will go for an out of court
settlement.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
>
> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
> work?
>
> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>
> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?
>
> --
> Owamanga!

If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just
money. My reputation, My wife's reputation and my family's standing in
the community. My daughter's business, my own business.

If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
reassess your own principals. If people don't trust your honesty and
integrity, how are you going to run a business which relies on them
doing that? As for sinking the ship? We have a Free Trade Agreement with
the USA which prevents that from happening!

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
> reassess your own principals.

My principal in high school was a real bastard. Always gave me detention.

If you're talking about principles, though, it escapes me why you would
want to go after Google rather than the person who actually did something
to you.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com