More illegality at Google's Hands

johngohde (AT) naturalhealthperspective (DOT) com wrote:

Logician wrote:
johngohde (AT) naturalhealthperspective (DOT) com wrote:
Logician wrote:

Sounds like you are publicly advertising the fact that your web site,
or what ever, is engaging in "trademark infringement" practices. That
means YOU personally, does it NOT?

No, I was saying thet Google is trading illegally, I am trading
legally. You can tell the difference as one word has the letters "il"
preceding the word legal - hence illegal.

Sorry, but Google is both good and great. Did you not read the memo?
Google wouldn't make a mistake anymore than God would.

SERPs are be fixed, but PRs certainly are NOT! Nor, does the public
give a hoot about PRs.

Just saying you don't understand it and the communication is bad, is
like saying a Japanese newspaper is written badly because French people
do not understand it.

Silly me, I thought that Google might have dumped your ads because you
don't communicate too well.

You have a fixation about communication: like you are a world authority
on it.

Well, Google has NEVER trashed me.

I think you do not understand retail, especially price control. Google
is killing Grohe ads because Grohe wants the ads killed, under the
pretext of trademark infringement (which is a load of rubbish).

A Grohe national executive already told me face to face, Grohe wanted
to price control.

There is only ONE reason not to state a brand name when selling: to
avoid price comparisons.

Read about Argos and its attempt to price fix:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2779777.stm - resulting in a multi
million pound fine. That was just one instance.

Asumming the pretext is not a pretext (LOL), then we can theorise the
following. No one could use the word Grohe without Grohe giving
permission. So when I enter grohe into google.com and it says "results
for grohe" that would be an infringement unless Google had permission.
It therefore follows that Google would need permission from every
tradename owner in the world to trade legally. Also, I would need
permission to just enter grohe into google.com.

It also follows, that any journalist reporting about Grohe in the
business pages, or any other company name would also need permission.
In short, the word could not be used unless everyone gained permission
in advance.

If you really need further evidence, just see the countless grohe ads
already in google.com including ebay.com. The belief is I assume that
all those ad owners all got permission.

Google is playing a pretext to control prices at the behest of Grohe -
that is illegal.

And, I know the difference between a SERP and PR. An article on SERP
would have been intelligent, while the article on RP was plain bad.

I know that much.

Logician wrote:

Google is playing a pretext to control prices at the behest of Grohe -
that is illegal.

Taking Google to court would be like suing Microsoft for cloning your
software.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Didn't you read the Google memo?

johngohde (AT) naturalhealthperspective (DOT) com wrote:

Logician wrote:


Google is playing a pretext to control prices at the behest of Grohe -
that is illegal.

Taking Google to court would be like suing Microsoft for cloning your
software.

True - may I quote Gates: "I'm goin fuckin kill Google."? Read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer including Steve expressing
pure venom towards Google.

Google is above the law until the Government decide to move. Government
has the power to crush Google.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Didn't you read the Google memo?
No.