- 13 A B A dissemination of the defamatory material (even though the defence of B innocent dissemination is available to secondary publishers conditional C D on them proving that they did not know and did not have reasonable grounds to be aware of the defamatory matter). Fevaworks Solutions C D Ltd has expressly parted ways with Tamiz on a matter of principle; our E F Court of Final Appeal has rejected the uncomfortable conflation of the innocent dissemination defence applicable to the period before Google E F Inc became aware of the defamatory material and the Bryne v Deane G H approach applicable to the period after notice was received. Mr McCoy SC in his oral submissions at the Leave Hearing has confirmed he G H is not saying that Fevaworks Solutions Ltd was wrongly decided. That I J being the case, question immediately arises as to the utility (or the extent of the utility) of Bleyer in this jurisdiction on the matter of whether I J Google Inc is a “publisher” when viewed through the prism of the K fundamental principles in Fevaworks Solutions Ltd. L L 25. M N K Mr McCoy SC has suggested that even though Fevaworks Solutions Ltd has adopted the strict publication rule for Hong Kong, the Court of Final Appeal could hardly have envisaged its applicability to the M N significantly different and unusual context of the present action. O P Mr McCoy SC has reminded that an internet search engine (with emphasis on lack of human input for its operations) is sharply different O P from an ISP that hosts an internet blog/forum (eg Fevaworks Solutions Q R Ltd) or that creates an internet hyperlink (eg Crookes v Newton16), and this must be an energising reason that articulates the decision in the Q R present case. S T S 16 [2011] 3 SCR 269 T U U V V