I suppose to extend that analogy: the newspapers didn't believe they were biting the hand that was feeding. They saw it more as cutting off the other hand that pushed their heads towards the food.
Google is saying both hands are equivalent, but the newspapers are saying they want one hand to feed them, and the other to keep away.
I can buy that, actually. Sure, I don't agree with the initial ruling, but IMHO de-indexing the newspapers from the search engine was unnecessarily retaliatory. I can understand why Google did it, but having made their point, I think they should gracefully back down claiming ignorance. This is a clear misuse of their 'monopoly' on web search for benefit in other areas.
EDIT: Oh good, my Google fanboi-ness is not in vain. The court ruling actually ordered that links be removed from "Google Web [sic]" as well. Oh well, the joke's on the newspapers then, as it appears they asked for it! (see roel_v's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2776384)
Google supplies the tools for the newspaper to have marked explicitly, using technology, the pages they want included/excluded from search, with no ambiguity. Instead, they chose to use vague, court language, with threat of a fine per link, to force google's hand. Personally, I don't know why google -wouldn't- drop them, permanently.
There is no monopoly on web search. Search works for everyone, specifically because there are established protocols and conventions that allow all these systems to work together. If your company chooses to ignore these conventions, I don't think it is unreasonable that you get ignored.
You don't have a -right- to be included in a web search. The reason google includes you (or any search engine) is because you are making a trade, they get better results which they can monetize via ads, you get more traffic, which you monetize through ads. If you opt out, why shouldn't they? What's in it for them? They aren't running a charity, they are running a business.
Your post demonstrates a misunderstanding over what the lawsuit was about. Publishers weren't suing to make Google stop linking to them. Google News was displaying full excerpts from copyright articles, sometimes entire paragraphs, and on top of that making money off that content through the display of ads. It was a copyright infringement lawsuit.
There is no monopoly on web search.
Google has over 65% market share in search. Second is Yahoo with only 16%.
Unnecessarily retalitory? I wouldn't be so sure. Don't forget that Google search results include selected content from indexed websites. The index itself actually contains all content, which Google may have believed to be a litigation risk given the vagueness of the removal request.
"Orders Google to remove from Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service, all articles..."
Depending on your interpretation, they were supposed to remove the newspapers from Google News and remove the "cached" links from Google Search results.
There's a € 25.000 euro fine on every violation of the court order. Google doesn't want to take a chance to leave room for even the smallest amount of ambiguity, so that's why they've removed all links to those newspapers.
The lawsuit was pertaining to Google News, not the general search engine. Google removed the links as punishment for challenging them in court, to show the content-owners that Google controls their revenue streams.
* EDIT: Oh good, my Google fanboi-ness is not in vain. The court ruling actually ordered that links be removed from "Google Web [sic]" as well. Oh well, the joke's on the newspapers then, as it appears they asked for it! (see roel_v's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2776384) *
That's in reference to the Google cache of lead paragraphs and other article excerpts. The lawsuit was not about general links in the search engine. Publishers sued because Google News was displaying lead paragraphs and other copyrighted writing in the aggregator.
If you started your own newspaper that copied all the headlines and lead paragraphs from the New York Times, it wouldn't be long before the New York Times sent you a legal letter.
Google is saying both hands are equivalent, but the newspapers are saying they want one hand to feed them, and the other to keep away.
I can buy that, actually. Sure, I don't agree with the initial ruling, but IMHO de-indexing the newspapers from the search engine was unnecessarily retaliatory. I can understand why Google did it, but having made their point, I think they should gracefully back down claiming ignorance. This is a clear misuse of their 'monopoly' on web search for benefit in other areas.
EDIT: Oh good, my Google fanboi-ness is not in vain. The court ruling actually ordered that links be removed from "Google Web [sic]" as well. Oh well, the joke's on the newspapers then, as it appears they asked for it! (see roel_v's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2776384)