Can't copy and paste from there; relevant passage:
"...orders Google to removing the sites google.be and google.com, more precisely the links (in cache) visible through Google Web and the service Google News (...) of Belgian Francophone and German-language publishers represented by Copiepresse."
So yes, Google is interpreting the ruling correctly, there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much or if the judge didn't understand what he was doing; I didn't read the whole ruling.
> there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much
I think theoretically it would be possible if and only if they specialized Google's crawler and rendering to only render a link (no preview, no cache link) for these sites and these sites only.
The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs and other article excerpts, specifically in the Google News aggregator, not plain links in the general search engine.
Can't copy and paste from there; relevant passage:
"...orders Google to removing the sites google.be and google.com, more precisely the links (in cache) visible through Google Web and the service Google News (...) of Belgian Francophone and German-language publishers represented by Copiepresse."
So yes, Google is interpreting the ruling correctly, there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much or if the judge didn't understand what he was doing; I didn't read the whole ruling.