[narcissus]

OK, so I read the PDF you linked to. Page 48, under the heading "V. ENACTING TERMS", point 3:

--- Begin Quote --- Reforms the challenged judgment to the extent that it ordered "Google to withdraw from all its sites (...) all the articles, photographs and graphic representations (...)";

Ruling again on this point only, reforms the injunction as follows: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service

--- End Quote --- (There may be some errors in the copy above and please excuse my pathetic formatting).

See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was.

It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites".

Or am I just reading that wrong?

[ToadyCensored]

See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was.

It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites".

Or am I just reading that wrong?

You're reading it wrong. It was a copyright infringement lawsuit over the scraped content displayed by Google News and in Google's cache, so the court's ruling was to remove those infringing materials from those services, not to remove the hyperlinks to the original articles in the general search engine.