Your analogy doesn't hold. Your backyard is private property. The data that LinkedIn publishes is intended for the public. That's why Google can index the pages and give you results from LinkedIn.
It does, in the US. You're likely making an inconsistent comparison.
Property ownership has nothing to do with visual access.
You cannot legally be barred from casually (involuntarily) perceiving something. It's reasonable to put up physical barriers to reduce what is casually perceived. It's a very good analogy.
However it doesn't hold - as your neighbor I can't bar you from putting up a fence because it'll intrude on my view of your property... granted people try to do that _all the time_ but I think it's commonly understood that putting up a fence for privacy is allowed.
It's also not a great analogy for this case because another party is given continued easy access to view my backyard while the first party is denied - and the analogy breaks down here because, as a neighbor, I have no inherent right to view your private life at least as much as any of your other neighbors.
It's trivial to fix that - the exterior of GP's house then. That's available for public viewing; is intended for it, but is private property. If you monetise livestreaming it and describe it in your ToS, GP can't repaint the front door, or get new windows?
Or perhaps slightly less contrived:
If I publish a monthly lowlights reel of my favourite sports team as a podcast discussion on where they can improve in all their lost games, and then they suddenly go on a winning streak for >1month so my USP is gone and I have nothing to talk about..?
Those examples don't fit because they are contracts not made in good faith. They aren't things you can control.
In this case, it was rules that the public data is available. It was a good faith contract on the part of HiQ to assume they could collect public data from a public website.
It would not be a good faith contract to assume you could control the paint colors on a property you don't own.
It seems to me that the interference ruling was wholly independent on deciding that what hiq was doing is legal.
Does that mean that ia grocery store offers free samples, I can go in every day and take all the samples, and the grocery is not allowed to selectively prevent me access?
It means that if they're offering free samples and refuse to offer you the same service they're offering to other customers they might be in hot water - which is consistent with what a lot of folks consider ethical. Offering an item for free to some folks and not to others is a form of discrimination - it's usually not a particularly troubling form of discrimination but in this case Google is allowed to walk up and take all the samples and the grocery store manager just smiles and nods - but when you (hiQ in this example) try and get one you're hit with an injunction and barred from entry.
I mean, anyone can be sued for anything. I can file a lawsuit with basically zero legitimacy to it. It'll probably get thrown out, but you were still sued.
If the question is could someone win, potentially. The argument would basically have to be that the removal of that open source project is akin to other cases of negligent interference.
If this is a specific concern, consult a lawyer - 'cause I'm not one.
