You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-07 10:34
eGoogle-YouTube was sued yet again for rampant copyright infringement in U.S. District Court in New York.
Plaintiffs, including the English Football Association Premier League and others said in their court filing that Google-YouTube is "pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright infringement" in order to increase the value of Google by generating more traffic which it could monetize without having to pay for.
Why is this British suit particularly interesting? Remember the fact that Google already has 75% share of the search market in the UK?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-04 17:45
I always take time to read interviews with CEOs because I always learn something.
What did he say that was relevant to the Google-DoubleClick?
First, he made the case why the Google-DoubleClick merger is a big deal:
In response to a question about being third in search -- Ballmer said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:53
Google blasted Viacom today in the press for suing Google in court for "building a business on a library of copyrighted video clips without permission," according to the NYT today.
Let's have some fun and dissect some of the Google quotes and translate what they are really thinking behind their PR spin...
Google's filing said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-20 09:45
Google turned in another awe-inspring financial performance in 1Q07. Pick your news report for the basics. All you need to know is revenue growth was up 63%. Wow!
Let me translate some of the earnings call:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-19 10:25
Given my recent 10-page white paper which analyzes the antitrust and competitive implications of the Google-DoubleClick merger, I thought it would be helpful public service to pose some questions that reporters/analysts consider asking Google's CEO Mr. Schmidt on Google's earnings call.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-16 13:59
The news of Google acquiring Double-Click prompted me to spend a good part of my weekend analyzing the competitive implications of this seminal proposed acquisition for the future of the Internet.
My analysis focused on answering the following key questions of interest:
Summary of my conclusions:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-10 10:43
The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.
So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"
Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-09 19:21
It seems that more folks have Google's "number."
It seems Google is learning the lesson the hard way -- that those in glass houses should not throw stones.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-13 12:14
The WSJ is reporting that Viacom has sued Google for $1b in damages for stealing its copyrighted content.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-06 10:45
Kudos to Microsoft for finally making a high profile challenge to Google's "cavalier" approach to copyright as reported in the lead story of the FT and in the WSJ today. It's about time that Microsoft figured out that a key element of Google's phenomenal success is simply that Google does not play by the same rules as other law-abiding companies.
Under what authority does Google operate in carrying out its corporate mission?
Google cheats. and cheating is core to Google's long term business model. Let's review the evidence of Google's cheating: