"the CPUs won't run it"

A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system.

The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.

If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes.

The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period.

Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.

This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case.

Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.

I really like that analogy.

Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower.

The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output.

The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.

If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.

They are not making any attempt for the summary to replace the TOS, rather it is intended as a summary for user convenience. I imagine that the only way that they could run into trouble is if someone showed that they deliberately made the summary with the intention of misleading users. Also, if there is an ambiguity in there TOS, then the summary may be invoked when clarifying it, however it seems extremely unlikely that that would happen.

No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/

Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?

Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here.

Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it.

Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.

"Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs."

I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning.

I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.