Google didn't just beat Geico in the high-profile and exceedingly brief court case; Google won a summary judgment from a judge who had no patience with Geico's absurd claims of consumer confusion.

"There is no evidence that that activity alone causes confusion," Brinkema said, in granting Google's motion for summary judgment on that issue. The ruling, on what the parties considered the seminal issue in the case, came just three days after the trial had begun.

Eat it up, Yahoo!. Your Overture division, already living with the shame of wussing out of the case and forcing Google to defend alone the business model both companies share, now must live with the reality of having wasted its settlement money. If it weren't for Google, companies riding Geico's sleazy coattails would be suing both companies in a torrent, angling for that easy settlement. With Google's victory, both it and you are basking in a strong precedent. And to think that Google is paying you licensing fees for contextual ad patents. You should hand back that money and stock on a gift-wrapped platter.

(The trial isn't over yet. The case will continue examining one remaining point: whether competing ads that mention Geico in the ad text violate trademark. On this point Google does not disagree in principal; such ads violate Google guidelines. Google asserts that advertisesrs should be liable in those cases, not Google. The essential trademark controversy over the legitimacy of selling ads that display on SERPs of trademarked keywords, is over for now. Google wins. Yahoo! stumbles offstage in humiliation.)