MWpro - 5:51 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)
That applies to copyright, this case is about trademarks.
The original point of trademarks was to prevent deception: i.e. someone "passing off" their product as someone elses.
There is such thing a contributory trademark infringement.
But anyway, I brought up contributory copyright infringement to show that sometimes it is easier and necessary to cut off the source/messenger/contributor. Imagine the record companies having to sue every individual file sharer to stop Napster or Grokster? Why should they have to do that when they can just shut down the source?
This is the same thing with Google. Are people seriously contending that they should go after the individual authors of the websites? Who could be thousands in volume and all over the world? Probably based out of Nigeria? Give me a break. This decision is an outrage.