Goobris
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-05-08 09:34
Reports that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt sees no reason to step down from Apple's Board in the face of a public FTC antitrust investigation over it, is emblematic of Google's long pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in competition, privacy, and copyright/trademark matters.
Google's consistent pattern of behavior is to push the envelope of legality farther than any other entity is willing to, and then arbitrage that unique edge, for (anti-)competitive advantage as long as possible.
- In competition/antitrust there are four high-profile examples of this no-limits pattern in the last half year alone: Google-Yahoo ad partnership blocked at last minute, Tradecomet.com sued Google, Google Book Settlement opposed, and the Google-Apple Board investigation.
- In privacy there are also many public examples of this no limits pattern: EPIC FTC Complaint against Google, lack of privacy policy compliance, interest-based advertising not behavioral advertising, Streetview opposition, Latitude stalking concerns, and Privacy International ranking Google worst in world on privacy.
- In copyright and trademarks there are even more public examples of this no limits pattern: Book Settlement opposition, AP wants payment for Google News, Viacom sues Google for illegal business model, Agence Press sues Google over snippets, MPAA sues Google over movie piracy, trademark owners sue over AdWords, programmer sues Google over Android name.
The Goobris pattern here is that Google always knows better than anyone else what the acceptable/legal limits are for antitrust, privacy and copyright/trademark fair use.
Another interlocking directorate
Press coverage of Eric Schmidt's participation in "interlocking directorates" has somehow failed to focus on a particularly worrisome one: Schmidt's chairmanship of the New America Foundation, an inside-the-Beltway "public interest" lobbying group. This "astroturf" organization claims to lobby in the public interest, yet somehow -- surprise, surprise! -- always winds up championing positions which are favorable to Google. Google is, not surprisingly, the group's largest source of funds, though the contributions are attributed to Schmidt rather than to Google. If this doesn't violate any laws (and it ought to if it does not), it is certainly not on the up-and-up; Google's relationship with this group should be better publicized.