Chico_Loco - 5:00 pm on Mar 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been pretty vocal on this one before, so I'm disappointed to see this.

I really do believe that the people making decisions on this are not completely understanding of all the facts. Cache in the form it was intended, and the "Google Cache" are completely different things.

Google uses this content for it's own benefit. It asks users to "bookmark" it's cached version, not the original. Google's sole ploy in doing this in to increase the average time people spend on it's site, thus increasing it's own "value" as an internet destination.

I bet that none of the judges that have ruled on this have ever published a webpage, nor ever done business online, so I really thing that makes them ignorant to the issues. I mean, I would never attempt to rule on whether or not Andrew Wileys proof of Fermats last theorm is correct or inaccurate, simply because I wouldn't have a god damned clue.

I would be ok with the cache is they removed the bookmark link, were required to have all caches done at least within the last 7 days and removed their name from the cache, but included all and any ads.

I just thing judges are afraid to rule against Google because they know that would be a blow to them and that investors would be sending them death threats!