Why a Public Algorithm?

On 28 June 2006, Google said the improbable: We will tell you how we rank. While every one is scratching their heads as to the precipice of this radical policy correction, here is something to wet your logical faculties:

On 21 March 2006, Kinderstart.com sued Google over the loss of PageRank and subsequent blacklisting of their website due to hidden text. This is very much like the People's Cube blacklisting of March 2006, which I discovered also had hidden text as well. Fittingly, I discovered this story from People's Cube (where I am to this day harassed).

According to an IP lawyer's exposition of the case, the only non-frivilous charge in the case is as follows:

In particular, the complaint marshals some non-trivial evidence that Google has falsely described its ranking algorithm operations. For example, the complaint (particularly paragraphs 37-38) describes some disclosures in Google's FAQs that say Google doesn't censor or manipulate search results, but the facts suggest that Google in fact does so.
[...]
To the extent the 17200 claim is based on false advertising, Google also won't be able to claim a first amendment defense like it did in the Search King case...If the 17200 claim is based on Google's false descriptions of its ranking algorithms, then the claim may be beyond constitutional insulation.

So Google states a plan to release algorithm details on 28 June 2006 and KinderStart.com trial officially starts 30 June 2006. Coincidence? Not in my book.