Google’s Half a Million Dollar “Giveaway”

It’s often said that in business, you get what you pay for. It’s also said that something given away for free has no value. Perhaps Google should have minded this because a French court has fined the company $660,000 for providing its Google Maps service . . . for free.  Yep, that’s all it took.

The court upheld an unfair competition complaint against Google for providing free web mapping services to some businesses. Though it might sound a little odd to the untuned ear, the ruling does raise an important question. In flooding the market with a no cost service, can a (now) dominant provider abuse its position and unfairly stifle competition by continuing to provide its services at no cost thereby making it impossible for junior users to enter the market?  Oui, says the French court.

Presumably then, Google and companies similarly placed could charge a nominal fee to use its service, thereby maintaining their position as market leader and allowing others to at least try to compete. Although, companies should be careful to not run the service at a loss as that would likely meet with the same judicial response.

You can read more about it here:

http://searchengineland.com/french-court-fines-google-660000-dollars-google-maps-109930

First thing is to kill all the lawyers!

Think there are too many lawyers out there already? Yep, you’re probably right. And many of them, don’t have jobs, nor good prospects of getting one any time soon.

But that’s not stopping hordes of students signing up to study law even if their chances of being gainfully employed upon graduation are looking even more grim. According to a recent article in the Guardian, only one fifth of Bar Course graduates will ever work as a Barrister and competition for Solicitor’s training contracts remains fierce.

And it’s no better across the pond where it seems students are routinely suing law schools for misrepresenting placement statistics. Really? Law Schools do that? I’m shocked.

Anyway, you can read more about it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/25/law-graduates-bleak-future-bar

Less said the better!

Ever wanted to mouth off about someone or something online? Sure, go ahead by all means, just be careful what you say. Oh and truthful, because there really is no such thing at anonymity on the web and the powers that be will come to get you!

But this is frequently forgotten by folks who post things that they would never say in person. Always remember boys and girls that libel laws follow you into cyberspace. And your ISP will have no problem unmasking you! That’s all.

For more info and helpful links: http://blog.ceb.com/2011/11/16/cyber-slamming

 

 

 

No fine over Jackson Exposure

Remember when it seemed like everyone was outraged at Janet Jackson’s Superbowl wardrobe “malfunction?”

Well, it turns out the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck out the $550,000 (£345,270) fine against CBS stating that the FCC “improperly imposed a penalty on CBS for violating a previously unannounced policy.”

And the legal fees to get to this point? Oh well let’s not tag those on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15570521

 

Is your car a worthless @*#!= of *#”$?

Well speak up and be proud as you can’t defame a car. So rules the High Court in London over allegations that BBC TV show Top Gear defamed car maker Tesla.

The judge ruled that it was impossible for viewers to be misled about the reported poor performance by the Tesla because “no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road.” Well glad that one’s cleared up then.

Just make sure not mention the Mexicans again.

You can read more about the lawsuit here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/top-gear-bbc-uk-251405

 

 

Have your balls and keep them?

Well here’s an interesting, if not altogether confusing decision from the High Court in London.  Is the court really saying that one spouse has no right to the other’s lottery winnings, absent a few exceptions (well this IS the law so there are always exceptions)?

If so, the moral of the story is, buy your own lottery tickets, don’t spend the money of anything for or used by your spouse (e.g., matrimonial property), and then walk away with the winnings!

If only. Bear in mind that this case arose in the context of division of martial property upon divorce and so it’s open to see how this would be applied in other situations.

I’m off to pick my numbers now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8832648/Spouses-have-no-right-to-lottery-winnings.html

 

 

 

I’m guessing it’s not Zsa Zsa

A US film actress has filed a $1m lawsuit against Amazon for allegedly revealing her true age on its IMDB site. She is alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violation of her private life.

Can this anonymous actress legally claim damages from Amazon for disclosing a true fact, which she would likely have to disclose to producers upon signing an engagement and to insurers for any pre-employment medical? I would say no. Even if the details were clandestinely obtained, I doubt she can make the causal link for damages.

Referred to only as “Jane Doe,” the lawsuit was filed in the Western District Court of Washington state, in northwestern Seattle.

This picture is obviously NOT of the actress in question (who clearly looks 23).

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/18/actress-sues-amazon-for-revealing-age-on-film-database.html

Didn’t start her motor?

So you went to see a movie called “Drive” and there’s not enough “driving” so what do you do? You sue, that’s what!

Or at least that’s what you do if you’re Sarah Deming of Michigan who is suing the film’s distributor because she claims that the promotional material was misleading, suggesting the film would contain more “action-y driving” scenes.

These types of lawsuits are almost never successful, no matter how they are couched.

Good luck with that Ms. Deming. You can read more about it here.

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/13/moviegoer-sues-not-enough-driving-in-drive

 

 

FBI makes arrest after Johansson, Aguilera e-mails hacked

So I guess for celebrities, the moral of the story is don’t take or store nude pictures of yourself on your mobile phone? Yes, you might have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but once hacked, it’s game over, regardless of what remedies you might ultimately have.

 http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/showbiz/hacking-arrest/index.html?npt=NP1

Florida Teen Pleads Vampire Defense

An 18 year old Florida girl accused of helping lure a 16 year old boy into a fatal trap says she’s a vampire and who, while denying drinking the victim’s blood, admits she has drunk the blood of her fiancé who is a co-defendant in the case.

I may be mistaken here, but “Vampire” isn’t a recognizable defense, unless you’re angling for the insanity plea.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/Florida-Teen-Murder-Suspect-Says-Shes-a-Vampire-130691733.html