You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-06-25 16:34
Viacom is likely to ultimately prevail in its appeal of the lower Court decision in the seminal Viacom vs. Google-YouTube copyright infringement case.
Why is Viacom likely to prevail on appeal?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-06-08 17:28
More specifically, this Zogby poll asked eight timely questions that are highly pertinent to:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-12 18:01
Whatever the Atlantic's national correspondent Mr. James Fallows calls his Atlantic cover story: "Google: Inside the company's daring plan to save the news (and itself)," it can't be journalism.
It was one of the most vacuous 12-page puff pieces I have ever read. Like Jeff Jarvis described: "It doesn’t break a single new nugget of news." It was the literary equivalent of a puppy jumping up incessantly to lick the face of the person in closest proximity.
How ironic is it that a journalist, that made a point of telling the reader that he taught journalism for several years, wrote the functional equivalent of Google PR brochure extolling all the good Google has done for journalism/newspapers -- with no journalistic critical thinking or balance.
It is hard to fathom that in twelve pages there were:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-04-23 12:26
Google's latest privacy-killing act of privacide is "Google's roving Street View spycam," which is not only taking pictures, but is also scanning to log WiFi network addresses and unique Media Access Control (Mac)addresses per Andrew Orlowski's excellent scoop at the Register.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-04-22 12:49
Why Google is too big not to fail.
1. "Bigtable" Storage design: How Google stores and accesses "all the world's information" in and from its data centers is: "'Bigtable:' a Distributed Storage System for Structured Data." It is Google's innovation to maximize scalability, speed and cost efficiency -- not security, privacy, or accountability. Simply, Bigtable is an "all eggs in one basket" approach to information storage and access.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-04-20 17:03
The abrupt change, that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt will no longer be accountable to shareholders on Google's earnings calls, should prompt investors to ask why?
What has changed, and what Google has been not been open about, is the very serious ripening of three different types of going-forward franchise risks (antitrust, privacy/security, and intellectual property) that cumulatively herald a de facto change in Google eras: from the roaring "Growth Decade" of 2000-2009, to the more unpredictable "Liability Decade" of 2010- 2019.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-04-08 14:50
Don't miss an outstanding op-ed by Devereux Chatillon entitled "It's about search Stupid" about the Google Book Settlement.
It is on point, insightful and has great clarity of thought.
It also employs a brilliant metaphor to capture the essence of Google's monopoly power -- search as a map.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-03-30 20:54
Ever since Google announced it suffered a cyber-attack from China, Google's legendary PR machine has gone into overdrive, opportunistically framing the conflict as a good versus evil story, and positioning Google as the Internet's benign superpower defending free expresssion, and as a new kind of business that puts morality before money.
However, those willing to look behind the curtain of Google's self-serving political rhetoric here, will discover that many of the attributes that offend so many people about China, Google shares to an unfortunate extent.
First, Google's leadership, like China, has affirmatively chosen to not be democratically accountable.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-03-18 19:11
Wow. The evidence Viacom unearthed in discovery in their $1b copyright infringement suit against Google is surprisingly damning. The evidence shows willful, premeditated, deceptive, and organized efforts by YouTube, Google and Google-YouTube to infringe copyrights for anti-competitive and financial gain.
So what are the broader antitrust implications of all this new and serious evidence of illegal activity and misconduct by Google-YouTube?
First, DOJ really blew it for not even asking for a second request of information on Google's acquisition of YouTube.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-03-12 10:55
A potential flood of very illuminating documents and information about the inner workings of Google are likely to be released soon by the Federal Court hearing Viacom's $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google-YouTube, despite strong Google opposition to the court's release of the information Viacom found in "discovery."