110. The Elusive Truth called 'LAW!'

VIEWS@ 8257

Now you see it - applied - then you don't. I copy the following text from LEXOLOGY today. It proves that all is SUBJECTIVE! Who is residing in court that day? Who knows who? What becomes more important 'under the circumstances?' Will the Rules RULE, or be re-interpreted?

I argued EXACTLY the following in the BC Court in 2010. "Google had a real and substantial connection with B.C...etc." Substitute 'Web-Developer's Name' for "Google."
=====================================================

".....Google responded that the B.C. Court does not have jurisdiction over it because it is not present in British Columbia, and because the application for an injunction does not relate to Google doing or refraining from doing anything in either British Columbia or Canada. Google argued that even if the Court did have jurisdiction, the order sought should not be made: (i) because it would amount to a worldwide order that could not be enforced; and (ii) because it would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into Google’s lawful business activities as a search engine.

The case raises two interesting questions: (i) Does the B.C. Court have territorial competence over a worldwide internet search provider?; and (ii) Should Google be ordered not to generate and show search results that provide hyperlinks to the Datalink websites which advertise and sell infringing products?

Jurisdiction

The B.C. Court decided it had the power to grant injunction against Google since it considered that Google had a real and substantial connection with B.C. and was within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. While advertising in a jurisdiction alone is generally not sufficient to grant territorial competence, Google is not advertising its own business, but rather going beyond by engaging with customers and providing them with user-specific, non-Google brand advertising. Additionally, Google sells ad space to B.C. businesses and had previously sold ad space to the defendants, and as result, was carrying on business in B.C.

Google as a facilitator of the defendant

Foreign “passive” websites have traditionally been off-limits for Canadian courts. However, the B.C. judge held that Google was an active not passive participant given Google’s customized search results based, in part, on Google’s past experience with that searcher.

The B.C. judge decided that although Google was an innocent bystander, it was unwittingly facilitating the defendants’ ongoing breaches of the Court’s orders. Moreover, there was no other practical way for the Datalink websites’ sales to be stopped, and no other way to remove those websites from Google’s search results.

Implications of decision on brand owners

It remains to be seen whether this decision remains entirely fact-specific, or has far reaching implications in respect of future court orders in Canada. Google has indicated that it will appeal the decision......"

=====================================================

In my case factual proof of involvement went FAR BEYOND mere rhetoric of being "an innocent bystander." A signed Contract with set Completion Date; a total of $43,000 paid on demand after "Phasal Completions." Almost daily E-mail contact and input by Client. etc/etc. 

The more I glean, the more I recognize the fickle fate called LAW! 

'CIRCUMSTANCES' NOT 'FACTS' control the outcome! 

Welcome to 'Reality.'