Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawsuits Fly Over Google Founders' Party Plane

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the everyone's-favorite-verb dept.

238

Mr. Soxley writes to tell us that the Boeing 767 recently purchased by Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page is at the heart of what promises to be quite a legal battle. From the article: "Now the Delaware holding company that technically owns the 767, Blue City Holdings LLC, is embroiled in multiple lawsuits with an aviation designer hired to plan and oversee the massive plane's interior renovation. [...] But last October, Blue City terminated Mr. Jennings's contract, saying he wasn't doing his job properly. Mr. Jennings then filed a nearly $200,000 lien against the aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration for payment he hadn't received. He later filed a complaint related to the matter against Blue City and Gore Design Completions Ltd., the San Antonio executive-jet outfitting firm that worked on the plane, in District Court in Bexar County, Texas."

cancel ×

238 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Doing the job well? (4, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687205)

"Mr. Jennings says allegations that he wasn't sufficiently involved in the project or accessible to the plane's owners are false, and has over 1,200 emails related to the project to disprove them."

Just because you have 1200+ emails relating to a project doesn't necessarily mean you are doing your job. With a project this size it could be argued that fewer emails mean you are doing your job better. This is the kind of project that requires a fair amount of oversight on a local level.

Re:Doing the job well? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687240)

Read your quote again, you shit-stained moronic fucktard. 1200+ emails isn't about "doing the job" it is about being "...sufficiently involved in the project or accessible to the plane's owners...". Huh. 1200+ in on year? That tops 3 a day. Well, fucktard? Is that involved in the project?

Re:Doing the job well? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687280)

Hey coward... "doesn't necessarily mean" and "could be argued" is what I said. That's a lot of email to reading and writing ain't it? Maybe he should get out from behind his computer and see just what the hell is going on with the project on a PERSONAL level. Just maybe, the owners wanted someone "sufficiently involved" enough to be doing more than email. Of course, by saying "doesn't necessarily mean", "could be argued", and "maybe", I'm just pointing out POSSIBILITIES, not my personal opinion on a article that is more than a little light on details. Lighten up and MAYBE next time YOU should read a little more closely.

Re:Doing the job well? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687401)

Sorry, fucktard, no dice. 3 emails a day is more than most people get from most contractors.

Re:Doing the job well? (3, Interesting)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687491)

Company: "What is the progress?"
Contractor: "I'll get back to you."
Company: "I hear there's a cost overrun with X"
Contractor: "I'll look into it."
Company: "Are your guys actually doing anything, or are they just in my plane for the A/C?"
Contractor: "We hire only the best"

Repeat every day, for 400 days, and you have 1200 email exchanges and zero usefulness from the contractor.

Re:Doing the job well? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687700)

A/C? On a plane? You really are a clueless fucktard, aren't you?

Re:Doing the job well? (2, Funny)

Soko (17987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687298)

Yeah, his lawsuit defense will never fly. I'm sure it'll crash and burn in the courts...

Soko

Re:Doing the job well? (4, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687502)

The /. equivalent of laugh tracks in comedies appear. With the help of subtle high-lighting of the funny parts of the text, you'll never be in doubt when you're supposed to laugh.

Re:Doing the job well? (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687474)

Most of emails with "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG", "No, we won't give you another million over planned budget" and "What the hell were you thinking while installing that thing?!"

When you post articles days late (-1, Flamebait)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687207)

*Please* don't steal the digg headline. It makes you look stupid.

And please don't MOD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687310)

insightful observations about article postings on /. as "Troll".

It makes /. look like a bunch of censoring morons.

Re:When you post articles days late (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687366)

Uh, dude, looks to me digg stole it first from The Wall Street Journal -- or did you not RTFA on either digg -or- slashdot?

it hasnt the word "blog" in the link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687380)


unlike every digg article

Must be a slow news day (5, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687208)

If the plane wasn't even remotely related to Google, the story wouldn't even be here. Am I missing something?

Re:Must be a slow news day (4, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687214)

You're not missing anything. Must be a slow news day.

Re:Must be a slow news day (5, Funny)

ThisIsForReal (897233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687253)

Didn't you see the slashdot story graphic? This is about your rights online and it affects us all dearly.

I can only hope that in this particular case, Google sends its lobbyists to Congress to change laws affecting how the FAA administers leans against aircraft so that all of us slashdotters with our own 767-200's don't have to worry about the judicial system screwing us over once again. This is about all of our ONLINE RIGHTS!

Re:Must be a slow news day (1)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687260)

Wouldn't gravity and leverage have more to do with leaning against aircraft than the FAA?

Re:Must be a slow news day (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687663)

so that all of us slashdotters with our own 767-200's don't have to worry about the judicial system screwing us over
That's nice, but what about those of us that can only afford 737-200's? :-(

Re:Must be a slow news day (1)

earthstar (748263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687270)

The story summary was messed up.

The interesting part of the imbroglio is not the lawsuit about that plane [I read that summary twice.nothing registered in mind], but that Larry & Sergei were fighting over what type of bed tha plane should have.
Finally ,it seems,Eric ,CEO, had to sort out the battle saying something like "Larry you can have the type of bed you want in your room & Sergei you can have the bed you want in your room".

Re:Must be a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687309)

Did one of them want a rotating water bed that played cheesy music? Does one of them have funny teeth, a funky 60s fashion sense and like to be known as "Mr Powers"?

Re:Must be a slow news day (2, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687452)

Exactly - this is about internet boom zillionairres squabbling like toddlers over their bling, more than anything else.

Re:Must be a slow news day (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687526)

I know Jesus. How hard can it be to rip out all the seats, and throw in some multicolored bean bags and a couple of Segways?

Re:Must be a slow news day (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687717)

"I know Jesus."
That's nice. Does he do airplane interior design, too?

Re:Must be a slow news day (4, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687283)

Yes, you are missing something. People who have achieved celebrity status or are influential are always more newsworthy, even for the small stuff. It's because lots of people are interested in their lives. If I have an operation for a hernia nobody cares. If Bill Gates has one you can bet it will make the news.

Plus, we get an insight into human behavior when we see supposedly brilliant, rich people bickering about idiotic stuff.

Re:Must be a slow news day (2, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687335)

Plus, we get an insight into human behavior when we see supposedly brilliant, rich people bickering about idiotic stuff.
I think we get enough insight into human behavior in normal everyday life. Besides, there are plenty of erratic, yet brilliant people. And I don't think their incidence is any different than the rest of the population. (eg. William Shockley, Howard Hughes, etc.)

Re:Must be a slow news day (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687509)

This story reminds me of a poster I saw once that read:

Great people talk about ideas
Average people talk about things
Small people talk about other people

Yes, no geek-gear inside (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687300)

Yeah it just a plain stupid suit about a plain stupid plane.

No cellulose wing, or X-prise, or other techno gear.

(Sigh)

Re:Must be a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687352)

Well, there are two zillionairs squabbling over how large their beds should be in their private Boeing seven-freaking-sixty-seven party plane. The same zillionairs that give cash to their staff for buying hybrid cars. Even without 'google', this story has massive wealth, stupidly conspicuous consumption, bickering among the super-rich, and a good dose of personal hypocracy. That's good enough for me!

PS - check out the Reg story on the same topic. Much funnier than the WSJ article.

Re:Must be a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687457)

You're right. RMS flies FIRST CLASS, and likes his gin martinis, but do we hear about that? Noooooo....

Re:Must be a slow news day (5, Funny)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687498)

Think of it as tech celebrity gossip. Tomorrow we'll discuss whether or not RMS's boobs are real.

Re:Must be a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687583)

Ow... my brain...

Re:Must be a slow news day (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687524)

Oh come on, this is exciting new.

The google founders are buying a party plane! I mean, these are the guys who we are told live in apartments and drive hybrid cars!

It makes me a little happier inside since even the big rich founders of Google succumb to the extragavance of wealth.

Re:Must be a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687561)

You must be new here.

Slow (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687714)

Pretty sure the idea was, "Look, Google is doing evil! The founders have their own jet and they sue the little guy! ZOMG! The Evil!"

YRO? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687235)

How the hell is this YRO?

Re:YRO? (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687292)

You'll see, when SkyN^H^H^H^H Google takes over the FAA.

Re:YRO? (1)

park3r (833325) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687404)

That's gSky (beta), to you!

Re:YRO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687436)

Your OS must really suck if it can't handle backspaces. Let me guess, Linux? Or is it Firefox's fault?

Re:YRO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687305)

With a Google plane, You're Right Ontime.

Re:YRO? (5, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687339)

How the hell is this YRO?

I think it's time that YRO either got re-named or re-thought.

Clearly we need a "Legal" or "Law" section. But if YRO was re-focused back to its original purpose, that might still be useful too.

(To forstall the inevitable "Why?" and "Who cares?", the answer is "So you can correctly filter the stories.", which is the only reason to have the sections at all. Someone can be interested in law stories like this and not actual YRO stories, or vice versa. And the purpose of these sections is so we can tell people who bitch about a particular set of stories to just filter them out, thus keeping the comment area that much cleaner.)

Re:YRO? (1)

cyberwench (10225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687517)

This seems to be put into a subsection of YRO called "The Courts", but it also comes up in the main YRO section. Maybe just stricter partitioning between the two would work.

Re:YRO? (1)

Cyner (267154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687343)

Missed This [slashdot.org]

Re:YRO? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687350)

How the hell is this YRO?

Because Slashdot only seems to have one legal section (YRO) and no one has made a generic one. This is despite the fact that most of the stories posted under this section usually have nothing to do with your rights online as people often point out.

Re:YRO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687382)

have nothing to do with your rights online as people often point out.


Most of those people don't understand the difference between "your rights online" and "your online rights". They seem to think it's the latter. We wouldn't expect "The New York Times Online" to cover only news related to the internet; yet that's what they expect from YRO. These legal issues all deal with someone's rights, and whether they have something to do with the internet or not is irrelevant.

Re:YRO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687461)

This is a dumb cop-out.

The New York Times Online is called such because there is both a print version of the New York Times and an online version. The New York Times isn't called the New York Times because it just publishes news about The New York Times (the New York Times is the name of a newspaper, not a category of news, in case you don't understand).

Why aren't all the other sections called "xxx Online"? Games Online? IT Online? Science Online?

Sorry your argument is silly and holds no water. Category labels should be respected or revised.

Some insanely rich dude's legal whining about his plush luxury jetliner has not anything to do with my rights, online or off.

Re:YRO? (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687537)

Not only that but what does this have to do with being online, or even computers and technology for that matter? I agree with another poster that creating a Slashdot Legal section would be a great idea.

You smell that? (0, Flamebait)

escapedlabmonkey (965708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687236)

Google farts and slashdot is there to sniff it.

Re:You smell that? (0, Troll)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687363)

And congratulate them on their newest innovation -- gAss.

Why is this news? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687239)

Seriously. Why should anyone care? Lawsuits and construction go together like oil and oil. A $200k contract dispute is non-news.

Re:Why is this news? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687505)

Seriously. Why should anyone care?

Dude, this is /. Maybe tomorrow the story will be "Google founder's cousin shits green after drinking lime vodka."

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687512)

Seriously. Why should anyone care? Lawsuits and construction go together like oil and oil. A $200k contract dispute is non-news.


Yes, but it's Google Partyplane! What else is needed? Nude Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise coming out of the closet? Ok. Ok.


Now the Delaware holding company that technically owns the 767, Blue City Holdings LLC, is embroiled in multiple lawsuits with an aviation designer, nude Paris Hilton, hired to plan and oversee the massive plane's interior renovation. [...] But last October, Blue City terminated Miss Hilton's contract, saying she wasn't doing her job properly. Miss Hilton then filed a nearly $200,000 lien against the aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration for payment she hadn't received. She later filed a complaint related to the matter against Blue City and Gore Design Completions Ltd., the San Antonio executive-jet outfitting firm that worked on the plane, in District Court in Bexar County, Texas. Tom Cruise came out of the closet."

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687569)

Indeed. I thought the article was pretty poorly written.
Most of it seems to be gossip about details of what is in the plane.
I think The Wall Street Journal should be just be honest and not assert the article
is about the lawsuit, bust instead about "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".

Re:In some sense (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687646)


I believe that the parties involved might be of interest to some people, and for variosu reasons. For example, Google has been touted ad the "omni-beneveloent corporate goliath" of the internet. One of the reasons *I* liked Google (aside from having a good search engine) was the fact that its founders seemed to be well-grounded - in other words, their pursuit wasn't based on the "status" it might afford them, but in being able to do something useful (and very well) with internet technology.

When stories like this surface, it makes me wonder if the money has changed some fundamental aspects of their initial vision. If money can serve as a catalyst to *this* kind of change, what other changes can result? Will they, at some point in the future, adopt an AT&T-like mentality where money is more important than integrity?

where is the ... (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687245)

WGAS tag?

Re:where is the ... (1)

neuraljazz (307431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687306)

Agreed. First, /. prooves it's now understanding that the link trend that it's submission-to-publish timestamp is slow. Second, just because it is google, we're publishing it on /. And thirdly, this is only the latest in serious conspicuous consumption that I've seen in a long time. Fattest ass plane to use during an energy conscious zeitgiest - not only is this bad press, but just damn stupid.

Do no harm. Even the Good that Google is doing is suspect. And the fact that /. is meeting it's own end of memetic transmission signal to noise ratio.
-NJ

This will serve as a stark warning... (5, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687261)

...for the rest of us concerning our modified 767s. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Re:This will serve as a stark warning... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687330)

This will not serve as a warning because Windows has bugs, and Linux is better.

That's not the half of this vast conspiracy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687262)

I also hear Mr. Brin also had a dispute with his home gutter contractor.

And let's not ever forget this gem from the article:

Mr. Jennings says Messrs. Brin and Page "had some strange requests," including hammocks hung from the ceiling of the plane.

I think stockholders should be quite wary of corporate executives reckless enough not to require aviation-class hammocks with wicker seatbelts.

If this is a problem (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687265)

arguing over who outfits my fuck off jet, its a problem I would be happy to have.

The only questions that remain now are... (4, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687267)

What does Star Jones think of all this, and is the northeast still flooded?

Re:The only questions that remain now are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687348)

Apparently Mrs. Jones was displacing a huge amount of water as all the floods ended the day she flew back to LA.

Hammocks? (4, Funny)

lahosken (24108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687273)

The idea of hammocks in a big jet doesn't sound unsafe.

It takes real guts to use a hammock in an ornithopter.

Re:Hammocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687398)

Hammocks? My goodness, what an idea. Why didn't I think of that? Hammocks!

Re:Hammocks? (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687488)

But if the designer presents you with a $180,000 bill for three hammock installed in the main deck, the idea starts feeling unsafe. For said designer. Who then has still check to sue you for not getting paid for installing said hammocks.

1200 Emails = Involved? (5, Funny)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687294)

Mr. Jennings says allegations that he wasn't sufficiently involved in the project or accessible to the plane's owners are false, and has over 1,200 emails related to the project to disprove them.
I've got 1200 emails about Viagra - I'm not involved in cock-pills.

Re:1200 Emails = Involved? (1)

crazyjimmy (927974) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687427)

Says You

Re:1200 Emails = Involved? (1)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687428)

I'm not involved in cock-pills.

Well, you should be. I want to talk to you about an exciting opportunity that people are talking about.

Slashdot Editors... (3, Funny)

uarch (637449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687318)

The Slashdot editors... Faithfully bringing you last weeks Reg stories today!

Mr. Jennings is a soar looser. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687338)

Mr. Jennings did a poor job and everyone knows it.

Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (0, Flamebait)

pcause (209643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687357)

The Google team does the best PR/image creation in the industry. This article shows us the truth about the Google guys. They make a big fuss about their $1 salaries and get it hyped in the press to create an image. They've been trying to keep the 767 quiet, but their own pettiness and delusions of grandeur have lead to the story leaking out. Note that Bill Gates flew commercial when he was worth more than both of these guys put together and he still doesn't have a 767. Isn't a 767 a bit of overkill??

At least this start to lift the viel. The "do no evil" is merely PR hype. Google is collecting an enormous amount of informaiton about you and what you are searching on, who you email and IM with and about what, about where you go and when (calendar), etc. If the govenrment was doing this we'd have a revolution. Goole is a commercial entity and is a whole lot less accountable. This 767 story should remind us that the Google guys are no better than Ken Lay, the Tyco guy, or Marth Stewart.

Don't trsut them with all this information about yourself. They intend to use it commercailly and there are NO limits on what they can do. They are secretive and don't tell anyone very much, claiming they need to protct their busines ssecrets from competitord. And since their privacy policy says that they can change the policy at any time, without notice and without your further consent, they can use what they've collected in the past in any way they want and share it with whomever it suits them to.

Not worried? Still believe the "no evil" hype. Just look at how fungible their moreals are in China.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687384)

Troll mod in 3.... 2.... 1...

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

kwoff (516741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687399)

Were all the typos and misspellings in your post to avoid getting detected... by them?

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

Unknown_monkey (938642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687412)

The "preview" button, a misunderstood and often mis-used miracle of modern science.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (4, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687418)

This 767 story should remind us that the Google guys are no better than Ken Lay, the Tyco guy, or Marth Stewart.

No it shouldn't. I don't remember any of the Google lot having been convicted for anything - there's quite a difference there. Also, I'm not American so I don't know who the Tyco guy is, but Ken Lay and Martha Stewart in the same breath? Wouldn't you think there was just a little bit of difference in the level of scam pulled...?

I'm not a Google fan really. In fact, if someone would give me as clean an interface I'd switch away from its search in a heartbeat, as I find it too heavily spammed and blogged these days. But really...it might show something about the Google boys' characters, but it doesn't show them as criminals.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687448)

Besides, if you're phenomenally wealthy I don't know of any law that says you shouldn't enjoy it. I mean ... what would be the other reasons for acquiring lots of money? Granted, a 767 does seem a bit grandiose, but no worse than the hundreds of millions that Bill Gates' has spent on his various homes.

Frankly, I think a hammock on a jetliner sounds like fun.

"Okay Bob, a nice gentle bank to the right ... okay ... now swing back to the left ... ahh, now you got it. Keep doing that for a while."

It wouldn't surprise me if Brin and Page get a little miffed at this guy for discussing their private jet in public, though.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687650)

Land of the silly hyperbole, home of the crackpot.

The jet is part of doing no evil (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687460)

Haven't you heard? Jets help stop global warming! They're just doing their part to save the planet ;)

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

mindtriggerz (914619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687462)

Search engine collects data used for marketing. Story at 11.
Seriously, do you really think that anyone actually belives the "Do No Evil" hype? People are people. Google is no diffrent. They're interested in profit. If they do good things allong the way, more power to them.
The diffrence is that they haven't yet screwed anyone else out of money (IMHO, Martha doesn't belong in that group either)

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (3, Interesting)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687500)

Bill may have taken commercial airlines but shall we talk about he or his partners yachts? You know, the ones that are in magazines almost constantly because they are so big and so decked out? Or the small islands they own?

Just because you are jealous someone else has more money than you do not tell them how to spend it. They made a successful business, and now are spending the fruits of their labor. How is that evil? Sounds like every American or European's wet dream to me.

I fail to see where it is evil except that it makes you green with envy.

Re:Sounds more like a subcontractor dispute. (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687514)

I don't know where you get the google boys being evil from this.

The main princriple is sueing the holding company above him and he also has action against the subcontractor below him that actually did the work.

"He later filed a complaint related to the matter against Blue City and Gore Design Completions Ltd., the San Antonio executive-jet outfitting firm that worked on the plane, in District Court in Bexar County, Texas."

That seems to indicate that the work was indeed improperly done and as lead contractor he is being held responsible. His response sue above and below and try to pass the buck.

I see no evil from the google guys here.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

dpiven (518007) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687553)

Google is collecting an enormous amount of informaiton about you and what you are searching on, who you email and IM with and about what, about where you go and when (calendar), etc. If the govenrment was doing this we'd have a revolution.
The government IS doing it, and the vast majority of the country doesn't give a rat's ass.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687580)

Don't trsut them with all this information about yourself. They intend to use it commercailly and there are NO limits on what they can do.

You mean knowing that I like cheese sandwiches, live in England and have a friend called Theresia will let them take over the world?! OMG you are right. There are no limits to what they can do now. Mind control is nothing next to this.

Re:Do no evil - except when outfitting your 767 (1)

wombert (858309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687724)

No, no... knowing a little about one person isn't dangerous. It's when they know that everyone in England likes cheese sandwiches that you need to worry. Using subliminal AdWords messages to ignite the Great Cheese Embargo of 2007 is just the first step in their master plan...

Bah (3, Funny)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687368)

People think this doesn't matter, but one thing is for certain, there is no stopping them, Brin and Page will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our customized-767-hammock-flying overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted member of Slashdot, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground server caves.

This is a rich person's problem. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687395)

You know that a company is on the way down when its founders buy a 767. Buying a 767 indicates that being rich is beginning to occupy their thinking, rather than management.

From the WSJ article: Mr. Jennings says Messrs. Brin and Page "had some strange requests," including hammocks hung from the ceiling of the plane. At one point he witnessed a dispute between them over whether Mr. Brin should have a "California king" size bed, he says. Mr. Jennings says Mr. Schmidt stepped in to resolve that by saying, "Sergey, you can have whatever bed you want in your room; Larry, you can have whatever kind of bed you want in your bedroom. Let's move on." Mr. Jennings says Mr. Schmidt at another point told him, "It's a party airplane."

NASA Ames & the Googlejet (4, Insightful)

Greg@RageNet (39860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687402)

Now you all know why Google signed the deal for office space at NASA Ames. It's not some expansion into the orbial launch business or some plot to be the intergalactic search engine. They signed a deal with NASA Ames so they could land their 767 on Moffett Federal's nine thousand foot runway biking distance from the Google campus. Must be nice to be all special like that.

Mile High Club (1)

agent (7471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687415)

It had to be said.

More Karmic Justice toward Stanford (0, Troll)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687429)

Guess FuckedGoogle was right about their 767 being up in flames, albeit of the legal kind ;) .

Evil masterminds... (4, Funny)

identity0 (77976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687435)

Why does this remind me of Austin Power's psychedelic 747 with bachelor pad interior?

Sergey: "Do I make you horny, baby?"
Cute chick: "Sergey, it's not the 90's anymore."
Sergey: "What do you mean, baby? Of course it's the 90's! As long as people use the internet mostly for porn and piracy of music and software, the 90's will always be alive!"

Dr. Evil: "I'm going to fucking kill Google!" *throws henchman's chair*
Dr. Evil: "So, about those Killer Chair Robots With Lasers I ordered..."
Henchman: "Well, it's about that, sir."
Dr. Evil: "Yes?"
Henchman: "We... could not complete the LongChair project. It kept crashing on us, I mean more than usual, in fact the prototype blew up spontaneously."
Dr. Evil: "Well, okay, what do you have?"
Henchman: "Ottomans."
Dr. Evil: "Ottomans?"
Henchman: "Ottomans, sir."
Dr. Evil: "Do they have frickin' lasers on their heads?"
Henchman: "No, sir."
Dr. Evil: "Saw blades?"
Henchman: "No, sir."
Dr. Evil: "Flamethrowers?"
Henchman: "No, sir."
Dr. Evil: "Well, what the fuck do they have?!"
Henchman: "Sir, we have integrated a Google search bar into their sides. It's really quite useful, you can Google while you lounge in-"
Dr. Evil: "I'M GOING TO FUCKING KILL GOOGLE!!!!" *throws chair with henchman through window*

Oh No Not $200,000! That'll sink Google! (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687439)

Sergey and Larry are Billionaires... To put that in perspective, if you had a net worth of 1 million dollars this would be like being sued for $200.

Re:Oh No Not $200,000! That'll sink Google! (2, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687455)

You are assuming that no punitive damages will be awarded.

Internet Planes? (1, Funny)

TechGranny (987537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687444)

Techgranny has some thoughts on the subject that you can listen too. She is not very coherent today, but felt strongly enough about this story to record something.
Apparently TechGranny thinks Google is trying to invent a new kind of internet plane.

TechGranny on the internet planes. [hackingbluegrass.com]

do we care? (-1, Redundant)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687450)

Are we caring about this?

Ok, I know the score... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687481)

Alright, I'll admit it-- I didn't read the article, and I barely read the summary.

But I did see "$200,000", "party", and "lawsuit" -- and I think we can all conclude the stripper's probably lying.

This Matters Because? (1)

Kurt Wall (677000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687501)

...because two ridiculously wealth guys who happen to run a search engine many people prefer own the plane that's at the heart of the lawsuit? Google is (mostly) a media darling, granted, but I really could care less about a lawsuit involving their plane. A plane? Good grief.

Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15687503)

he's filing a 200000$ lawsuit against an aircraft?!?!

So much for the environment (2, Interesting)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687667)

Why not burn 12000 gallons of fuel per capita to get to the next great party? After all, they will be dead on 50 years so it doesn't effect them.

Ever wonder why American troops are fighting for Iraqi oil? Bush just sells it - it is clowns like this that burn it up.

i do find it funny (1)

atarione (601740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15687720)

that mr gates apparently had to be convinced (with some difficulty) that using charter planes would be more productive than taking commercial flights. while the google guys are buying an enormous 767 with hammocks to "party" on. interesting
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>