Google.be (Belguim) recently experienced a lawsuit. While I am trying to get the whole story the end result is they posted this on their home page (in French, I used Google Translate to post it here):

Pursuant to has hearing of 5 September 2006, the Belgian Court of First Instance sitting in Brussels [Court of First Authority of Brussels] issued the following Order. COURT OF FIRST AUTHORITY OF BRUSSELS N° 2006/9099/A of the role of the summary procedures Action in suspension In question of: The civil company in the form of a co-operative company â limited responsibility COPIEPRESSE, registered in the SCE 0471.612.218, of which the registered office is established in 1070 Anderlecht, boulevard Paepsem, 22, moving party, represented by Me Bernard MAGREZ lawyer in 1180 Brussels, which occurred Winston Churchill, 149; against: The company of American right Google Inc., whose registered office is established in Mountain View, 94043 California, the USA, 1600 Amfitheather Park Way, left defendant, failing; In this cause, it is concluded and pled in French with the public sitting of August 29, 2006; After deliberated the president on the court of first authority the ordinance makes following: Considering: - the introductory quotation of meant authority on August 3, 2006; OBJECT OF the REQUEST the request carried in front of the court of céans is founded on article 87 of the law of June 30, 1994 relating to the royalties and the close rights. It aims to - to note that the activities of Google News and the use of the “mask” of Google violate in particular the laws relating to the royalties and the close rights (1994) and on the data bases (1998); - to condemn the defendant to withdraw from all her sites (Google News and “mask” Google under some denomination that it is), all articles, photographs and charts of the Belgian editors of daily press, French-speaking and German-speaking represented by the applicant from the significance of the ordinance, under penalty of obligation of 2.000.000, - € per day of delay; - to condemn moreover the defendant to publish, in a visible, clear way and without comment of its share on the Home Page of `google.be’ and news.google.be’ for one 20 days uninterrupted length of time entirety of the judgement to intervene from the significance of the ordinance, under penalty of obligation of 2.000.000, - € per day of delay. TALLY OF LITIGATION 1. The quality of the Attendu applicant that the applicant is the trust company of the rights of the Belgian editors of French-speaking and German-speaking daily press authorized (by the Ministerial decrees of February 14, 2000 and June 20, 2003 published in the Belgian Monitor of March 10, 2000 and August 14, 2003) to carry on her activities on the Belgian territory; Waited until its object is the defense of the royalties of his members (right clean with the editors and right assets near the journalists) and controls it use by thirds of the works protected from its members; Waited until the newspapers and sites of the newspaper industry are in particular protected by the laws on the royalty (1994 and 2005) and on the data bases (1998); Waited until the production of journalistic works is carried out by the traditional publication of daily newspapers, magazines supplements in the shape with paper or, since the emergence of new technologies, under numerical or digital format; Waited until the secondary exploitation is carried out by the copy of the paper document and, since the emergence of new communication and information technologies, the secondary exploitation can be carried out by electronic processes (scanning, captures Web site and repeat broadcast via Web sites or Internet or extranet or emailing, etc…) ; Waited until this secondary exploitation by the electronic way of articles of press is also governed by the laws on the royalty (1994 - 2005) and on the data bases (1998); Awaited since the applicant, who represents the interests of the editors of newspapers, has interest and quality to act for purposes to protect their rights; 2. Facts Waited that the search engine Google has, in the current of the year 2003, presented a new service called Google News or Google Actualité, exerted by the company defendant; Waited until the new functionality aims at offering to the Net surfers a press review which is based on an automatic selection of the information contained in the Web servers of the newspaper industry; That, with this intention, Google News must scan in the Web servers of the newspaper industry and to extract the articles from them to copy them and/or make automatic abstracts of them, whereas the sites whose emanate the diffused articles, and in particular the sites of the editors of newspapers whose interests are defended by the applicant, comprise the mentions according to which these sites are protected by the royalty; Waited until Google did not collect the agreement of these various sites to carry out this scheduling of the information which is left to some extent with its only discretion since it is titular technology and algorithms allowing automation and systematization, of the reproduction of the articles available on Internet; Waited until this situation caused difficulties not only in Belgium but in other countries; Waited until in Belgium, the applicant deposited a request in seizure description founded on articles 1481 and following of the legal Code between the hands of the judge of the seizures of the court of céans; That, by ordinance of March 27, 2006, the expert Luc GOLVERS was appointed; Waited until the ordinance indicating it was meant with the defendant on April 13, 2006; 3. Report expert Waited that expert GOLVERS, which had in particular the role of describing the way in which are presented the articles of press and the interactivity between the visitor and the Web site of Google News, concludes that “Google News is to be regarded as a gate of information and not a search engine. ”; That it records that the service Google News qualifies itself like a site of information on line, in these terms “This diversity of prospect and of approach is single among the sites of information on line and we regard as a task essential to help you to remain informed on the subjects which import you more. ”; Waited until it raises that the site is fed using the information drawn from the press, which it highlighted while carrying out many tests starting from sites of information of various Belgian French-speaking daily newspapers; Waited until this research in particular led it to highlight that, when an article is always on line on the site of the Belgian editor, Google returns directly, via the mechanism of major hyperlinks, towards the page or is the article but that, as soon as this article is not present any more on the site of the editor of Belgian press, it is possible to obtain from it the contents via the hyperlink “out of mask” which returns towards the contents of the article that Google recorded in the memory “hide” which is in the gigantic data base that Google maintains in its enormous park of waiters; Waited finally until it results from the report/ratio of the expert that: - the current operating mode of Google News makes lose with the editors of daily press the control of their Web sites and their contents (see on this subject the tests carried out by the expert which show the effects of a withdrawal of article, pages 42 to 67 of the report/ratio); - the use of Google News circumvents the advertisements of the editors which draw a great part of their incomes from these advertising insertions (pages 13 to 18, 108 to 119 of the report/ratio); - the use of Google News shorts-circuit many other elements like the mentions relating to the editor, the mentions relating to the protection of the royalties and the uses authorized or not of the data, from the bonds towards other headings (e.g. the files sets of themes consisted the editors, pages 108 to 119 of the report/ratio); - the use of the “mask” of Google on the one hand makes it possible to circumvent the recording required by the editor and to elude the payment of the article of press (the case of the Evening on line sees describes by the expert on pages 35 to 38), on the other hand stores, for its repeat broadcast, the entirety of the article (in the state where It was at the time of his most recent edition) (pages 68 to 98-99 of the report/ratio) 4. Identification of the identity of the owner of Google and Google News Awaited that the expert in particular saw himself conferring the mission of determining the identity of the owner of the DNS `Google.be’, `Google.fr’ and `Google.com’; Waited until the examinations that it carried out in this respect (pages 124 to 134) highlight that the owner of the site `news.google.be’ like that of the fields `google.be’ and `google.fr’ is each time the defendant part, Google Inc., 1600 Amfitheater Park Way, Mountain View, California 94043; 5. The damage caused with the Attendu applicant that the applicant complains about what activities of Google Inc. put in danger the electronic sale of the articles of press but also all the daily press as in the short run the quality of the articles since the editors are likely not to be given sufficient resources more to remunerate their journalists correctly; That indeed, and like highlighted it the expert report, the activity of the defendant is likely to make lose with the editors a significant part their incomes drawn from the advertising receipts which they perceive; That independently of this immediate financial loss, the electronic sale of articles is threatened, as well as the resources drawn from the filing of the articles, whose consultation is paying; 6. Requested measurements Attendu that the violation of the provisions relating to the royalties justifies that the measurements as requested by the applicant and recoveries with the device of present are ordered; 7. The obligation Waited that the applicant requests court that in the event of failure with measurements of which it asks the benefit, an obligation of 2.000.000, - € per day of delay is marked on the assumption that the defendant would not conform to the order to withdraw from all her sites the articles, photographs, charts of the Belgian editors of French-speaking and German-speaking daily press as well as an obligation of 2.000.000, - € per day of delay fault for the defendant of publishing on the Home Page of `google.be’ and `news.google.be’ for one 20 days uninterrupted length of time entirety of the judgement to intervene from the significance of the ordinance; Waited until it justifies the importance of this request by the fact that the defendant posts a sales turnover of almost 13 million dollar per day; That it also highlights the technical capability of the defendant to withdraw contents of its data bases the articles and litigious information of manner such that it is not exposed to great difficulties to be carried out; Waited until the court of céans does not fail to be surprised by the attitude of the defendant who did not consider it useful to take part in the mission of expertise, in spite of the invitations which had been addressed to him by the legal expert, and who does not appear; Awaited that this attitude constitutes an indication of what fears which nourishes the applicant on the unwillingness that will put at the defendant to be carried out could be founded; That it cannot be allowed in addition that she persists in withdrawing a benefit raised with the assistance, in particular, professional work of others, while speculating in the difficulties which the authors and editors of newspapers in an extremely complex technological context have to put an end to this illegitimate appropriation of their work; That the attitude of the defendant is all the more surprising that in other countries, certainly more important than Belgium, the defendant engaged in negotiations with the editors of newspapers to solve the question of the respect of the royalties; Waited until it results from the expertise that the technical capabilities available to the defendant, and who are out of proportion with the means of the French-speaking newspaper industry of a country like Belgium, allow him to adopt an attitude which confines with the indifference, whereas she withdraws a benefit of the diffusion on the fabric of contents which required the pooling of editorial and leading means important on behalf of journalists and editors of newspapers, whose activity is essential in a democratic company; Waited until in this measurement, it appears actually indicated to match the measurements of prohibition ordered of an obligation, with the risk which they are deprived of any effectiveness; That it appears appropriate to the court that this one is given as follows: - withdrawal of the articles of all the sites: 1.000.000, - € per day of delay in the 10 days of the significance of the ordinance to intervene; - publication during 5 days of the entirety of this judgement: 100.000, - € per day of delay in the 10 days of the significance of the ordinance to intervene; BY THESE REASONS, Us, G.M.R. Tassin, judge appointed to replace the President of the Court of first authority of Brussels; Assisted V. Hubrich, clerk; Considering the law of June 15, 1935 on the use of the legal matter languages; Rejecting all fuller or contrary different conclusions; Let us declare the request admissible and founded in measurement hereafter: - let us note that the defendant can prevail herself of no exception envisaged by the laws relating to the royalties and the close rights (1994) and on the data bases (1998); - let us note that the activities of Google News and the use of the “mask of Google” violate in particular the laws relating to the royalties and the close rights (1994) and on the data bases (1998); - let us condemn the defendant to withdraw from all her sites (Google News and “mask” Google under some denomination that it is), all the articles, photographs and charts of the Belgian editors of French-speaking and German-speaking daily press represented by the applicant in the 10 days of the significance of the ordinance To intervene, under penalty of an obligation of 1.000.000, - € per day of delay; - let us condemn moreover the defendant to publish, in a visible, clear way and without comment of its share on the Home Page of `google1be’ and `news.google.be’ for one 5 days uninterrupted length of time the entirety of the judgement to intervene in the 10 days of the significance of the ordinance to intervene, under penalty of an obligation of 500.000, - € per day of Condamnons delay the defendant at the expense liquidated to 941,63 € (quotation) and 121,47 € (allowance of procedure); Thus judged and pronounced with the public sitting of the summary procedures of September 5, 2006. V. HUBRICH G.M.R.TASSIN

And yes, they did it as one giant, out-of-control paragraph! Maybe Bill can translate the translation?

I take it Google isn’t very happy with the ruling…

Next Article: Marketing Online: Tips for making friends Previous Article: New stuff coming: YA Redesign