What policy is in the public's interest here? Why should we support intellectual property ownership that extends to stopping rivals from showing ads alongside the results from Google searches that include a company's name? Surely it is helpful to the public to allow such ads to appear.

(Of course I understand that most people's ignorance of economics is such that they believe the same argument would apply to all IP, that it would somehow be in the public interest if no one could patent or copyright anything. I can only suggest that such people open an introductory economics textbook before commenting.)

Good question - just exactly what is the public's interest here, and by how do we judge the efficacy of *any* IP creation? As IP is a creation of laws, customs and contracts, rather than the haptic property that would be land, cars, wife, children and other chattels (speaking mostly historically here), then it behoves to decide just how we do this.

If google can display another site when I'm searching for my site, why can't I download a song to see if I like it?

I don't know the answer. I know that certain IP arrangements have shifted from "efficient" to "non-efficient" due to shifts in the economic equations of for example copying. Whether songs can be pushed back into efficient IP remains to be seen; things like iTunes are a bright spot in an otherwise dismal lowering of the candlepower of music as commercially sensible IP.

I HAVE A TRADEMARK QUESTION? MY GREAT GRANDFATHER FOUNDED WHITE AND CASE LAW FIRM. DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE MY FAMILY NAME? I HAVE FEELING THE ESTATE WAS ROBBED BY THE PARTNERS.ARE THEY NOT USING HIS REPUTATION TO MARKET THEIR CROOKED LAW FIRM? MY EMAIL IS CTAYLOR594@AOL.COM

Not sure what the point of this "victory" was, or what it will cost.

The winning company definitely aren't trying to get Google to stop returning results for their name - in the current internet, that would be a disaster - most people don't bother to bookmark any more, when googling will find a site in just a few clicks.

Google are merely selling advertising space on a page that contains the trademarked name - would this mean (for example) that "yellow pages" trade directories can only have one company of any given type per page, as otherwise you are risking a similar lawsuit? or would it only apply if the directory compiler deliberately put a competitor on the same page - which tbh is also usually true. How about product reviews? must comparisons between different products by different manufacturers require each to be on a separate page and no common comparison page to exist, lest the sacred Trademark be forced to share a page with a hated competitor?

This result fails to make sense at all. I would suggest that, similar to DMCA takedowns (which are then listed in full on a second page) that the entire results page for that one term be replaced with a "you have searched for a trademarked term that is the subject of an ongoing court case against Google; for that reason, it has been removed from the database - can we instead suggest you try the general search terms ....." and see what effect that has...