Talk:Google litigation

Untitled section

Hey guys, I know this article is a little on the raw side at the moment, but I think it'll grow with your help into being an incredible article. I appreciate any help possible I've made fewer than 1k edits so I'm still learning, please don't hesitate to help me out :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

10,000% Growth in legal department size in 5 year period is interesting.

Telling the reader the growth of the Google Legal team gives a sense of how fast litigation at google increased over a very short amount of time. if we said 1 to 100 in 1,000 years it wouldn't be that exciting. but 1 to 100 in 5 years is note worthy. It's like a car that can go from 0 to 60 quickly is more interesting than a car that goes 0 to 60 very slowly. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing against including the figure for the number of lawyers in 2006. It is indeed interesting. But it begs the question of how many lawyers there are now, which is why I placed a {{inline-update}} tag. I can't see why you object to providing a figure for the number of lawyers in 2015. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for how many lawyers they have but haven't found a source for it. I've been looking I'll see if I can gleen it out of a SEC filing Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile it needs tagging so other people can join in the hunt. That's what tags are for - collective editing. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just disagree that it's an update. since it's not really updating the 0 - 100 speed. it's adding something unknown completely.I think of it like this . "Google went from 1 to 100 lawyer in only 5 years! now they have over 3,000 ( or whatever ) lawyers!!!" just like we'd say "this kickstart went from 0 to 1,000,000 in only 30 minutes ( pebble color ) and raised in total 5,000,000 dollars!!!" so I agree that we are adding to the information but not really updating it ( since the first portion is unupdatable ) but I get your point we can toss a tag on there if you really want. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that it's just plain misleading if left on its own. It tells us very little - they grew, once, but so what? I think the number should be either up to date or absent. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How is that misleading? I think this might be a cultural difference, Google is an American company, and american readers will think 1 to 100 in 5 years. thats a lot of growth. I wonder how many lawyers they have now? and then they will wonder the same thing we're wondering :P. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering we have an entire article filled with un responded to criticisms of google and we demean a persons livelhood as nothing but a critque of google ( Scroogle ) I think we can still find a way to sleep at night telling people a fact while we look for additional facts. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why these particular law suits?

Google must have been involved in a zillion law suits, so why include these particular ones in the article? Some of them are clearly major, such as the right to be forgotten, but others apparently less so. At the moment the article is just a copy of leads from other articles and doesn't really bring much to the table - a reader can achieve the same by simply searching.

Before someone shouts "POV", or "synth" I suggest including the purpose of the article in the lead. For example that the cases included in the article are generally accepted as being milestones in Google's legal history (a reference or two will of course be necessary). Andyjsmith (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been looking for a reliable source on "Google has been sued X amount of times ( thousands I'm sure ) so that the litigation climate at google is being expressed. and that these mentioned lawsuits are notable ( evidently since they have WIkipedia articles, if they aren't we can look at deleting them but that's unlikely ) I think the header should talk about the general litigation climate ( work load, legal team size, etc ) and then the list of those cases should be introduced as "notable" and each section could have an introduction. for example "Google books has been the blah blah blah of blah blah blah" This article is really new. I'm looking for information on flushing out the catagories. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This is a pretty simple one...if the most recent numbers that can be reliably sourced are from 2006, then that should remain in the article with an {{update-inline}} tag; and it might also help if the sentence containing said numbers preceded with: "As of 2006..." Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

if we say "as of 2006" people will think we're behind the times at wikipedia. if we say "1 to 100 in 5 years" they won't think we're incapable of finding a newer source :P maybe its horrible. I check K-8s K-10s and Q-10s under the SEC filings and it just says how much they spend in admin + legal fees ( so I couldn't even cite a legal budget sadly ) so I dunno where to look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 March 2015‎

• Updated it myself in the end. Not difficult. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work! Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Duplication

I'm concerned that this article doesn't have a clear purpose and is basically just a duplication of the leads of other articles, basically a non-POV content fork. I can't see that it provides anything that isn't already covered by {{Category:Google_litigation}}. I'm tagging it as duplicating material in the main articles so other editors can lend their opinions. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

oppose I disagree since there are 17 lawsuits mentioned here and only 15 in the catagory "Google Litigation" so not all the content is duplicated at all, secondly I disagree since smaller lawsuits that warrent notability but not their own article can't exist in the catagory for example we have information on a lawsuit by about mian mian that is too small for an article but is still notable, the Google litigation page can accommodate that information. thirdly, this page is fairly new it can grow into a lot of things. if google litigation didn't exist this information would just get called a "criticism" ( how litigation is a criticism is beyond me ) and end up in the POV nightmare "Criticism of Google" Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Mian Mian item could sustain an article of its own. It's too brief to convey much information - it needs more depth. It could be an illustrative section of an article about Google and copyright, or about copyright infringement in general. I don't see what it's doing here apart from taking up shelf space. The same goes for the other sections in the article - they're not here for the purposes of developing a theme or illustrating an issue. There are section headings such as Privacy but no context is provided. Basically, this is a collection of pre-digested factoids rather than an informative encyclopedia article. We have to ask ourselves at all times "what does the reader take away from this article?" Andyjsmith (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Then make the article :P if you think Mian Mian is that important ( I found the info just laying in Crit of Google where evidently it wasn't deserving its own article back then ) What readers get out of this article is an understanding of what the litigation climate of Google is. I notice you have no problem with Apple Inc. litigation, of course I didn't make that article so we know why you don't dislike it :P We could make an "Apple Inc. litigation" category, but that is less useful. you can't just look at wikipedia word by word you have to consider the higher structural architecture. why does Apple litigation have an article and google litigation have a catagory? when essentially they are pretty much identical ( just a list of lawsuits with some info on them spinning out to main pages ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would use the opportunity to illistrate a point. Apple inc. litigation has an article instead of a catagory, Google litigation had a catagory (first) not an article. The "Catagory" method has spawned a lot of stubs. where as the "article" method, has not. of the cases mentioned in apple inc. litigation very few of them only have stubs that are created since the small paragraphs could live in the article just fine. with the catagory method every case HAD to make its own article. I think the article method is better, a case can be a paragraph, and grow and grow in the safety of being incubated in the article, and then when if it grows big enough and strong enough to leave the nest it can go to its own article. Where as the catagory method it goes straight into to an article ( usually a stub ) and doesn't get the love and attention it would have gotten had it been in a article. Just my two cents comparing the evolution of wikipedia with 2 different examples. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

oppose, for numerous reasons, some important ones mentioned above (completeness, depth). The google page has become a stale crown jewel of 'Good article' (category engineering, mind you), that no longer provides encyclopedic depth of the "phenomenon" with its numerous implications. I do not like content forking, as I expressed on Talk:google#Merger Proposal recently. Given Bryce Carmony's recent experience with ANI it's the way to go. Since the dust of Andyjsmith asking to ban Bryce for 6 months is barely settled, I sense more than content-based concerns motivating anyjsmith's opposition . --Wuerzele (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Litigation in Russia

There was also one litigation in Russia filled by Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service. More info can be found here: http://www.gratanet.com/uploads/user_14/files/Legal%20alert%20Yandex%20vs%20Google%20antitrust%20case%20in%20Russia%20November%202015.pdf 109.206.156.72 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)