Keniki - 12:00 am on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think the claim was frivolous because it contained very little factors that hadn't already been ruled upon in previous cases with google. Its a waste of everyone's time to argue something where a ruling has been previously made. If a company or organisation is continuely asked to defend an accusation they have previously successfully defended then it would be fair to call the claim frivolous and to ignore previous rulings is just plain stupid.