hutcheson - 6:02 am on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

In this case "looking over one's proprietary rights" will be no problem: it is as simple as opting out of caching. As the judge knew that the plaintiff knew -- so, in polite legal language, she told the plaintiff, "you bozo, why are you taking up valuable oxygen in my courtroom asking for relief that, even BEFORE all your inane babbling, you could have gotten for yourself for free?"

That is a basic legal principle. "What could the plaintiff have reasonably done to mitigate the alleged damages? Would that action have been simpler and cheaper than hiring lawyers?"

But that wasn't all. This was not a close call. In order to defend its activity, Google had to prevail on only ONE of six different issues -- the judge came down on Google's side on ALL of them (as well as on a couple of others which looked to me like blind alleys). The decision could be reversed on five counts--not likely that it would be--and Google would still win.

[edited by: hutcheson at 6:08 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]