They obviously failed before execution, but that shouldn't matter...
Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?
Although it will probably go precisely nowhere, this is an interesting point. This sort of attack goes beyond a "character" attack on the company. Indeed, Google isn't directly affected by a drop in stock price; but as a Google shareholder, I am.
How is that fair or remotely acceptable? I suppose that's the purpose, and it's despicable. Once the political support for the MPAA ends, they'll have nothing left.
Say that you were once charged with some awful crime. I mean really really bad crime. A little later the police noticed it was actually forgotsusername who they were after, and you were let go and even given a public statement that it wasn't you. But say I pulled up the records of you originally being charged and put them up on a billboard. Let's say I even showed the part where you were let go. But the crime is so horrible, and some people are so jumpy and so strongly believe in the 'where there is smoke there must be fire' line of thinking that your employer decides you are just too much of a liability. Would you have a case against me?
(Granted this might depend purely upon local laws where you live, so maybe the question should be: should you have a case against me?)
Yes. According to the article it's in a court filing. I presume for the following lawsuit:
http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_jimhood_dec...
Publishing an editorial in the WSJ with the intention of manipulating a company's stock price certainly feels like it should fall under the same category..
They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any.
They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand.
Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not generally help you much.
I'd agree that McLibel didn't play out that well for them - however here we're talking one massive company vs another. McLibel was not even close to the same thing as e.g. Google vs. the MPAA would be.
Anyway my main point was laws already exist to protect companies from malicious communications.
My point is more that if Hollywood were lying about Google then Google would have legal recourse. If they are not then Google will just have to suck it up.