There seems to be a recurring issue with judges making rulings on subjects that are beyond their understanding. I know there is the principle of the “reasonable man” and that this hypothetical “reasonable man” does not necessarily have specialist knowledge in a particular field. This is what makes the “reasonable man” a good forensic test. The problem is that a judge is not necessarily a good model for a “reasonable man”.
This court case and judgement to anyone who has any understanding of how search results work (or the English language) for that matter wonders how much a “reasonable man” this judge was. The consequence for this judgement beggars belief. It is just one more example of how ignorant judges are failing the IT world.