Re:How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension fea...
by DannyBee on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:16AM
(#12444070)
I can't see the difference either because it makes no sense.
First, they only need probable cause to pull you over, you don't actually have to have broken the law. So the analogy is pretty broken, because the police already can do the thing you don't want google doing :).
It's also civil vs criminal, so ...
Second, the law is codified, why do you think it was taken down?
Google received a trademark complaint. A complaint someone broke the law.
This is like going down to the police station and filing a complaint.
As for "actively allow", that's silly. They aren't ignoring trademark complaints about the others, they just didn't get any. I'm sure if someone filed complaints, they'd take those down too.
First, they only need probable cause to pull you over, you don't actually have to have broken the law. So the analogy is pretty broken, because the police already can do the thing you don't want google doing :). It's also civil vs criminal, so ...
Second, the law is codified, why do you think it was taken down?
Google received a trademark complaint. A complaint someone broke the law. This is like going down to the police station and filing a complaint.
As for "actively allow", that's silly. They aren't ignoring trademark complaints about the others, they just didn't get any. I'm sure if someone filed complaints, they'd take those down too.