On Jun 18, 11:02 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Google gets into politics
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | As Google gets bigger and the pots of cash grow, so the firm needs
> | to increase its political influence.
The irony is that most of these opportunities were "out in the open".
They were based on Open Source technology (linux, dig, crawlers,
WAIS...).
They were based on publicly available information (usenet newsgroups)
The aquisitions were thought to be insane at the time (YouTube).
The offerings were highly leveraged - very little customer investment
gives very large return.
Service was optimized to best meet the needs of both the paying
customers (advertizers), and non-paying (searchers).
Most of the "ideas" had been posted on usenet and mailing lists for
years.
Eric Schmidt just did what it took to turn good ideas into reality.
Politicians (paid by Microsoft) have tried to tie up google with lots
of red tape, including:
Antitrust issues,
SEC Regulatory issues.
Taxation questions
Nuisance lawsuits - people demanding payment for content,
then asking to have their content put back - for free.
> | As it buys up companies from
> | around the world and integrates them into its machine, its activities
> | are bound to attract the close eye of Washington, and a public
> | policy department is sure to serve as a focus for 'interaction'
> | between Google and the government.
Google has been attracting attention almost since day one.
When they went public, the SEC couldn't figure out why?
The IPO was repriced a few times, based on it's actual revenues.
The OSS structure makes it hard to track expenses - what should be
taxed?
On the other hand, Google never said "You can ONLY list your content
with us"
in fact, most of their content is available publicly - even through
other search engines.
Google never said "you can only search through us"
In fact, several other search engines search google as part of
their content search solution.
Google never said "you can only advertise through us"
In fact, Google's customers often pay a fee to be listed on several
search engines at once.
Google's main advantage is their ability to cluster a bunch of Linux
servers so cost-effectively that
even though it would be completely trivial to compete, almost nobody
really wants to try.
The more obvious issue is that Microsoft attempted to "lock out"
google, by attempting to replace
the search engines that call Google (including the browsers), with
their own. Microsoft wants
to lock out Google and then charge them for access to the OEM
distribution channel. Google
has managed to compete by offering a very good service which can be
downloaded for free,
and can be installed in just a few minutes.
Microsoft has been trying to "Lock out" Google, almost since their
inception. With Vista,
they have just resorted to pure and simple sabotage. They attempted a
tactic which
made it nearly impossible to install Google utilities and tools, and
made it nearly
impossible NOT to use Microsoft's search engine services.
The irony is that Microsoft is a google customer. Search Linux or any
OSS project and you
will almost always see a link to one of Microsoft's "fast facts"
reports.
Microsoft is attempting to "protect" it's users from the "pornography"
of Open Source Software.
Google is one of the easiest ways to get unfettered and unbiased
information about almost any
topic, including Open Source Software.
Remember, it is Microsoft who has tried to maintain monopolistic
control of the desktop, especially
the OEM channel. It is Microsoft who was ordered, in the Appeals
court ruling unanimously approved
by a full panel of 9 judges - NOT to attempt to use it's monopoly
power of the Operating System to extend
it's monopoly into other areas. They were also ordered NOT to
interfere with the access of competitors to
the Marketplace.
The DOJ has decided to ignore the Appeals Court ruling, and has become
deaf, dumb, and blind to
all of the activities and open and flagrant violations of this Appeals
court ruling, based on the "fine print"
of a settlement that was appearantly designed to allow Microsoft, one
of George W Bush's earliest and most
aggressive contributors, to be "ABOVE THE LAW".
Maybe George W Bush will give Charles Manson a pardon too?
Maybe another for John Hinkley.
> `----
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40392
> Related:
>
> Google to recruit a bevy of Europeans lobbyists
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Google, the search engine heavyweight, is no longer prepared to
> | stay out of the business of fashioning the political environment
> | for decisions made in Europe.
Let's see. The EU rules against Microsoft, fines them $?million/day
for contempt of court.
They order Microsoft to stop sticking shovel-ware into their operating
system.
They order Microsoft to stop trying to exclude competititon from the
OEM market.
They order Microsoft to stop trying to bundle new products with their
monopoly-ware.
They order Microsoft to publish the trivial changes they have made to
public standard protocols.
Microsoft has refused to cooperate with ANY of these mandates, but now
it's GOOGLE who is
manipulating the government?
Microsoft tried to lock-out RealMedia, QuickTime, iTunes, WordPerfect,
Corel Draw,
Netscape, AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, Borland (numerous products), Lotus
(1-2-3, Notes, SmartSuite...),
Adobe (Acrobat, Photoshop, Flash...), Norton, Symantic, McAffee...
And now you DARE to say that it was GOOGLE who had lined the
politician's pockets?
ROFLMAO!!
This is like letting Ted Bundy go, and then shooting one of the nurses
who managed to survive
the rape and murder spree, because she was "making too much trouble
for Mr Bundy".
> | For lobbying work on its behalf the
> | company is at present searching in numerous large European cities
> | for politics-savvy lawyers; one such "European Policy Counsel"
> | position will be available in Hamburg/Berlin.
> `----
The judges and prosecutors are going totally crazy over Microsoft's
absolute refusal
to even pretend to be a law abiding citizen, and the appearant
inability of the US courts
to enforce their own laws and judgments.
When Google said "we have a little problem here", most of these
politicians were
chomping at the bit to have someone who wouldn't "weasel out" when
Microsoft
started trying to turn the thumbscrews.
Google is a huge cash engine, and they don't have much debt. Google
was already
huge when it issued it's IPO, and only sold enough to compensate some
of it's early
founders who were ready to retire.
> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/87158/from/rss09
> Privacy International demands apology from Google over smear campaign
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Privacy International has accused Google of embarking upon a smear
> | campaign within the media to discredit both PI and a report, to be
> | published in full later in the year, which ranks the privacy
> | performance of the top Internet service companies.
Isn't Privacy International the company who tried to sue Google for
publishing
copyrighted material of other companies? Google pointed out that it
was quite
easy to exclude any content using a very simple online form. There
wasn't even a charge.
Google even offered to permanently "Lock out" the clients who appeared
to not want their
copyrighted material cited by Google.
Of course most of those "represented" almost immediately came forward
and said,
"Never mind, we don't want our content removed". Perhaps PI had told
these people
that they would get a huge cash payment from Google in a negotiated
settlement. Of
course, the lawyers would have recieved a substantial portion -
perhaps as much as half.
When Google appeared more than eager to comply with their wishes and
stop publishing their
copyrighted material, the extortion scheme backfired.
It's a bit like when the blackmailer gets pictures of you with an
attractive woman who isn't
your wife, and tells you "If you don't pay me $50,000 I'll send a copy
to your wife", and the
"mark" responds with, "That's a great picture, could I pay you $500
for about 100 8x10 glossies,
I want to send them to ALL of my friends - including my soon-to-be ex-
wife". Could I get a poster
sized one for my friend, the District Attorney?
Not only have you not achieved the desired result, but now the "mark"
will let everyone
know what a great "photographer" (blackmailer) you are. Instead of
getting a big fat
paycheck, you have to leave town - in a hurry.
> | [...]
> | The Google response should be interesting, to say the least. Expect
> | this one to run and run, up to and beyond the date in September
> | when that final report is published...
When the lawsuit mentioned above was first filed, the commentators on
Bloomberg, NPR, and Fox were all
saying "careful what you ask for, you might get it". They all
understood that many businesses PAY google
to provide links to their archives and index the content of the ads
(to assure that it reaches "interested viewers").
Perhaps the plaintiff didn't understand how easy Google had made it to
prevent EXACTLY the type of undesired
publication being listed in the complaint.
> http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry1491.html
|
|
