On May 3, the day before Thanksgiving, Google announced it was suing the Washington Post and the Guardian, claiming that its ad products violated the First Amendment.
“These ads were deemed to be offensive, as they were designed to cause the user to feel discomfort or distress,” Google wrote in its filing.
The two publications, which were also the first major news organizations to report on the allegations, were forced to take down the ads.
It was the first time Google had gone to court over ad-blocking software, which has become increasingly popular in the US.
But it was only the beginning of a new war on the internet, and this time, Google was going to take on the world’s biggest publisher.
The battle over the ad market First came Google’s $1 billion settlement with Microsoft in April.
The settlement was a blow to Microsoft, which had made billions selling Windows-based software and had a long history of suing online services.
It also came as the company faced an antitrust investigation over antitrust practices in its Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 software.
Microsoft had accused Google of being too dominant in the search market, and was suing for unfair competition.
“Google has been the dominant search engine in the world for more than 30 years,” Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith, said in a statement at the time.
“It’s important that we have a robust free and open search market to support consumers, and that the world is well served by an open, vibrant marketplace for digital goods and services.”
But while Microsoft and Google had been allies for a long time, they had not previously had a close relationship.
Microsoft’s antitrust case against Google was brought in 2010.
The case centered around Microsoft’s decision to use the Bing search engine instead of Google’s in the Windows 95 operating system.
While Google was the dominant player, Microsoft was using its own search engine, Bing, which was much faster.
But Microsoft argued that Google was using Bing in a way that made Microsoft’s search products more expensive.
Microsoft also argued that Microsoft’s Windows 95 search engine was more difficult to use for those who did not have a Windows 95 computer.
It said that if the court sided with Microsoft, it would result in more expensive software for users who did have a computer.
Google countersued Microsoft, and the case went to trial in 2013.
Google’s lawyer argued that its search engine is not more expensive because it has more users, and also because it is faster.
Microsoft argued in the court filings that its products are more complex than Bing’s.
Google, for its part, argued that the software has been around for 30 years and has been downloaded more than 1 billion times.
In the court documents, Microsoft said that the court should let Google get away with using its search product.
Microsoft, in a letter to the judge, argued: The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that search engines are not ‘the primary means of communication,’ but rather the primary means for determining what content to include in search results, and therefore the primary mode of communication.
The First Amendment does not require that search engine providers provide users with an alternative way to access content.
In fact, the court has recently held that search content should be free, open and available to everyone regardless of how they access it.
Microsoft and its lawyers went on to argue that the search engine software should be classified as a speech service, which would require the companies to pay Google for the use of its software.
Google countered that the company was merely providing a service that users could use to access and store information.
Google argued that if Microsoft were to require the company to pay the $1.9 billion it was seeking, that would be a “cost of doing business” that would prevent it from making investments in search.
The court ultimately sided with Google, and Microsoft was ordered to pay $3.1 billion.
The money paid to Microsoft was then split between Microsoft and Alphabet, which owns Google.
The $1bn paid to Google was split among all of the other members of Alphabet.
As part of the settlement, Google agreed to pay an additional $1,500 per month for the next three years.
Google said in the filing that it would pay Microsoft $1 per user on its Android phones and other devices.
Google has been fighting the $5 billion settlement in court ever since.
In June, the case reached a critical point.
On Monday, Judge Lucy Koh ordered Google to turn over any documents and documents relating to the case.
Koh, who is based in Boston, had previously ruled that Google had to turn the documents over.
The judge ruled that if Google had not turned over the documents, the judge would have no choice but to order the search giant to comply with her order.
“The record clearly shows that Google has not complied with this order and it is a very serious matter,” Judge Koh said in her ruling.
“As a result, Google has lost all of its options and is in contempt of court.”
The settlement reached in June also gave Google access to data on more than 200