Comments on: Google finally sued by makers of Finally Fast

Another lawsuit is pending over advertisers that bid on keywords involving trademarks they don't own, while also alleging Google has unfairly manipulated search results.

[MMcCubbing]

Companies should absolutely be allowed to have their page displayed alongside their competitors' even if the search term happens to be trademarked. So long as the company who owns the trademark is the first and primary result, I see no reason why other options should not be presented.

And as for a site not showing up in Google's index; last I check Google did not guarantee that every site would be listed and if a site was removed from the index for good reason it only makes sense that it would not be automatically put back in again. I am sure that if a request was sent to Google to review the site for inclusion in further indexing, that they would gladly comply.

[almostrice]

The way it works know is you have to pay as much or than your competitor or else their ad would be more prominent than yours. This is the main problem most trademark holders have with google's current system. You have to pay to keep your results at the top especially when your Trademark name gets more popular.

[baconstang]

I remember the original FF ads on TV showed mostly Macs, even though the product works only on Windows. The newest ads show mostly Dells and other PCs. I wonder if Apple had a talk with them?

[Sausagebiscuit]

LOL so I wasn't the only one to notice that. They almost ALWAYS had a Mac in the picture.

[thelemurking]

ah that goofy little Kevin Rose look-alike on his iMac complaining about how slow his computer is now... I wanted to slap that kid!

[MaggieRed]

I think Apple should sue them because they use an Apple iMac in the ad and the product is only for a Windows based PC. They are implying that the iMac needs this product and it cannot.

From their site: Works with Windows Vista, XP, ME, 98, and 2000

[mjconver]

I love how a simple Google of "finally fast" sends you to dozens of testimonials about what crapware it is. Sorry, Ascentive, the truth hurts.

[01Phyxius]

Seconded.
Also, there is no reason that google would remove something without good reason, and therefore a simple request should put it back in order.
Finally, I'm pretty sure google has the right to display whatever it wants in terms of search results because they OWN the algorithm that creates them. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[damiandennison]

I agree with this.
This just confirms what I have been saying now for a long time these search providers control what we get when we do a search. It;s now like to general media when too controlling. I want to be able to search and not have the provider decide what I can or can not find. They can block things I want to find if that company does not pay to be listed. Not good.

[jaguar717]

I agree with you on the "general media" (mainstream/dinosaur media), which is why I've "voted with my pocketbook" by choosing not to patronize CNN/CBS/PMSNBC. And so have millions of others, considering their plunging ratings.

You're free to do the same with Google or whoever doesn't provide the content you like. I happen to think Google does a pretty decent job for day to day searches for non-controversial topics. When it comes to important stuff, I have no problem going elsewhere.

But it's far different to start demanding that a company whose services you choose to make use of start providing you things on your terms. You're free to deal with them or walk away, but not dictate what they'll do with their servers and algorithms. Your wants are not entitlements, no matter what our generation has been raised by the schools, media, and politicians to believe.

[gefitz]

So, that free product that they provide you? It needs to provide results based on your parameters? Good luck with that, damiandennison.

Why don't you pay someone to provide you with what you want? Until then...quit whining about search providers controlling what you see. They do, and to me they have every right to do that unless they charge you for thozse search results.

This isn't an "enduser fairness" question, it's a question of how Google allocates it's paid services. To me, it's up to Google to provide it's results however it wants to. It's up to ME, though, to not be lazy and presume that the results I'm provided are the gospel. I should be informed as to what parameters a search engine uses to sort results.

That's not necessarily possible with Google, or with any search engine...so the push from endusers should be for some sort of transparency in this regard.

[damiandennison]

@gefitz
Are you for real?
Does Google offer paid search? If you advocate or promote your business as fear then why not just be that, is it so hard. If you are filtering out content they do not like or want us to see then they should make it clear they are doing so.

Just because it is free does not give them the right to pretend. I would happily pay a search provider who will not filter and just provide all the result to me so I can chose for my self. This is why I do not use only one search I use them all and not just sometimes but all the time.

Before you start defending google just they are not perfect, none of them are.

[Pete Bardo]

Ascentive, How's that working out for you?

Another suit by someone who doesn't understand trademark law!

[Sausagebiscuit]

Any smart computer user would not install their software. Even the commercials cry "scam". While it might not be a scam, it comes close. QQ Google hates us.

[alegr]

If most computer users were smart, they would not need malware protection.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It's pretty easy to get your company's name on the search results page- pay for it. Buy ads from Google and they will be happy to put your name right up there in the advertising spot, and since the page it generates has your name on it, it will be indexed as well and may very well show up in the results below as a result.

Like most things with Google, if you pay them enough money, you can get them to do whatever you want them to. It's a free market. Google isn't under any restrictions stating their results have to be fair or give qualified results- you can most certainly pay to get your listings higher in the ranking.

Remember, it's not a free service- ads support it. Google has no obligation to offer unbiased results. They are a for profit company.

[MadLyb]

Companies like Ascentive, that take advantage of the less technical, should be shown the door in any manner possible.

They give our industry a bad name.

Go Google!

[therobot]

wait a minute let me reply to this....It's not working! Hold on I'll check it again. It's taking forever!!

[thelemurking]

don't press that button or you will blue screen!

[Dan7637]

these people are idiots, their commercials are annoying and cheaply made, plus the dude that starts going finallyfast looks like he is over enthusiastic

only an idiot would pay for removing spyware and etc

[professionaladventurer]

I use my compositors name in my keyword ads. I also purchased a domain name nearly identical to theirs but they use .....in.com instead of ......ing.com Where ing is correct English in their name and their domain name is not. To bad for them. I also believe I have a better product and better prices. They also have NO internet advertising.

[tech_crazy]

If yours is a similar product to theirs, you can expect a lawsuit against you in the near future. To top it, getting a domain name very similar to theirs is grounds for "bad faith registration". You may want to talk to an attorney.

[cp256]

I know google screws around with listings in bogus ways (humans just suck suck suck sometimes, especially liberal fascists), but screw Finally Fast and their ********* ad spam to hell. Google should give weight to companies' "spamminess" factor in search rankings to keep internet menaces like Gevalia at the bottom of the lists.

I'm sorry, commonly occurring two word and very short phrases like "finally fast" should just be SOL when it comes to rankings. If they want to be artificially higher in the list then they should pay for it or ****.

[cp256]

So you can't post gddamnd or S_T_F_U. How totally lame, SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!!

[cgaliher]

Google is in the wrong here. I have no love for "Finally Fast" but Google has crossed a line. Let's start by establishing a few facts. Read the first sentence in the second paragraph. Google is being sued for allowing advertisers to PURCHASE ADS with trademarked keywords. This isn't about pages getting indexed highly on their own, but about google actively breaking trademark laws to MAKE MONEY. And to prove my point, I'm going to use Google's analogy against them.

Google claims that you can go into a grocery store and be presented with variety. Okay, fine. Pepsico has spent time, effort, and money building the brand and trademark of Mountain Dew. Now you can walk into a Safeway and see on their shelf cases of Mountain Dew, and further down the aisle, you see "Green Lightning" which a common person could presume is a knock-off. Is Green Lightning infringing on Mtn Dew's trademarks? Depending on the design of their label, maybe, but for our argument we'll say they differentiated themselves enough not to. So no problems. At the same time though, Safeway isn't explicitly making money by helping a competitor ride Mtn Dew's coattails. Safeway and Google are the same in this respect. If Google *just* provided search results then all would be well.

Now let's say that Safeway starts an adertising business. Google sells ads, so this is where the comparison must be drawn. Safeway encourages "Green Lightning" to buy an ad, and safeway goes around all of their stores and puts small banners in front of Mountain Dew on the rack that says "Green Lightning tastes just like Mountain Dew and we sell it here!" Safeway is using a trademark name, Mtn Dew, to sell advertising of ANOTHER product! This is wrong! Google allowing competitors to PURCHASE ADS (yes, I stress it as I did above to draw the correlation) with another competitors trademarks in them as keywords, they are essentially allowing a practice that would never be allowed in the real world. They are allowing a competitor to stand on the backs and freeload off of a company that spends time and money building a brand.

Maybe "Finally Fast" does suck. But the product should rise and fall on its merit and free enterprise. Equally its competitors should rise and fall on THEIR merit...and free enterprise. But selling advertising based on one company's work to another isn't free enterprise at all.

So google, do no evil?!?