Why Google Bothered to Appeal a $761 Small Claims Case (and Won)
Am I the only one sypathetic to Google here?  It seems to me that this guy's self-righteousness is based on a serious misunderstanding:After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers, Mr. C. responded by saying that such thinking did not apply to Google's terms of service. Effectively, Google's position was that it was above the law, and if not any law in particular, then at least the spirit of the law. Irked, I decided to find out if such a position was tenable.Well, he found out, through the appeals court, that his position was not tenable.  The rights of those accused of crimes have no bearing on the TOS, a contract he agreed to, which clearly states that his account can be cancelled for any reason.  His whole lawsuit was predicated on the fact that he didn't think the reason they gave-- that his account "posed a significant risk to [..] AdWords advertisers"-- was good enough.Now, based on this, why would Google let a lower court ruling stand?  It's not the $761, it's the precedent.