User visits A.com, types in their username and password, and a cookie is set in their browser. The browser will send that cookie back to A.com with all subsequent requests, and A.com's server will use it to enable access to the user's account.

Now the user visits B.com, which makes a request to A.com/private_user_data. The user's cookie is sent with this request, so A.com will respond with (and B.com will receive) the user's private data without the user consenting to this at all (not even in a "misguided" way).

Is it? I can't find a trademark registration on the USPTO site.

    function foo() {
        return function() { };
    }
    console.log(foo() === foo()); // This must log `false` in a compliant implementation

>We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request.

The post states that his lawyer has reviewed the subpoena, but doesn't mention whether or not it contained a non-disclosure order. That's an important detail to address if the claim is that Google acted against its own policy.

    Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
    PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.84 seconds
    PostgreSQL (Unix socket): 1.93 seconds
    SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds
    SQLite (tempfile): 0.06 seconds

    Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
    PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.71 seconds
    SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds
    SQLite (tempfile): 0.07 seconds

    Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
    PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.77 seconds
    SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds

That defense didn't do too well in another case: https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-backs-new-jerse...

Apparently that's not a joke anymore?!