Conflict of Interest

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, it is a real pleasure to be here today, and thank you again for not issuing that formal subpoena you had to threaten in order to compel us to testify.

Let me begin my testimony by taking this opportunity to divert the media’s attention from this hearing by making a series of Google public announcements that our news algorithms predict will bury news of today’s hearing on the second page of most search results.

I am now also a contributor for Forbes writing the Tech Capitalist blog:

• Click here for my first post: Why Motorola's Patent Play Backfires.

Google's purchase of Zagat, a leading restaurant guide and reviewer, opens a search conflict can of worms just as the FTC is in the middle of a broad antitrust investigation of Google, which includes investigating the allegation that Google deceptively favors its own content in its publicly represented unbiased search rankings.

Top ten questions for the FTC to ask Google.

Don't miss a new very funny Google privacy satire by Comediva that AdWeek flagged:

• G-male -- "Google engineers the perfect boyfriend: G-Male he'll anticipate your every desire based on reams of personal data."  (3:13)

This adds to a great lineup of other funny Google Greatest Hits satires that I have assembled on GoogleMonitor.com:

• "Google Roommates" (3:03)
• "The G-Mailman" (2:42)
• "New Google phone service whispers targeted ads directly into users ears." (2:34)
• "Google threatens to kill users" (2:04)
• "Google opt out feature protects privacy by moving to a remote village." (2:08)

To understand how Google is deceptively misdirecting attention away from their own ignominious record of serial property infringement by loudly accusing its competitors of being anti-competitive for enforcing their patent rights, see my new Forbes op-ed: "Google Asserts Property Rights Are Anti-Competitive."

This is important because:

• The FTC is currently investigating Google for a variety of deceptive and anti-competitive acts and behaviors;
• Google has a history of trying to distract law enforcement from focusing on Google by flinging accusations at others; and
• Infringement of competitors' property rights is arguably one of the most anti-competitive practices a dominant firm can engage in.

Few have connected the dots of how Google's serial mass infringement of competitors' property has been integral to Google's rapid monopolization of the search business and its strategy to rapidly extend that search business market power in most every direction.

Simply, no one can compete with unabashed property infringers.

Find the op-ed here.

Silicon Valley local merchants, who compete with Google Places, have complained to Silicon Valley's local paper, the San Jose Mercury News, that Google is effectively penalizing their online content so that in practice, no one can find them.

• See the article here: Local Business Site Challenges Google Ranking.
• See the site Google has penalized here: www.ShopPaloAlto.com.

This could have the makings of another Google antitrust complaint of interest to the FTC and/or the California Attorney General to determine if Google is being:

• Anti-competitive to an important local competitor to Google's own local offering, Google Places, or
• Deceptive in its representations of being an unbiased information broker and never manipulating search results for its own commercial benefit.

Where Google is vulnerable here, is that it is forcing its own self-serving and unappealable standard of online "authority" (which drives Google's search ranking and reinforces Google's market power), on the Silicon Valley local shopping marketplace, smack in the face of common sense and real life commercial authority in the physical marketplace.

New evidence, that Google's StreetView WiSpy cars collected and made public an additional category of sensitive consumer data (i.e the unique device identifiers or MAC addresses of consumers' personal smart phones and laptops) that was not previously known, strongly indicates that Google was deceptive with, and withheld essential evidence from, FTC WiSpy investigators last year. (The FTC's Section 5 authority states: "deceptive acts and practices...are...unlawful.")

• Based on credible new evidence that directly contradicts Google's public representations, the FTC should reopen its Section 5 Google WiSpy investigation to determine if Google deceived consumers and/or FTC investigators about what private information Google actually collected and used that could potentially harm consumers.

I.  New evidence of Google deceptive acts:

Kudos to CNET's Declan McCullagh for his outstanding and detailed reporting that uncovered this new and relevant WiSpy misrepresentation evidence.

Netflix continues to throw stones at the common economic practice of usage-based pricing, to which broadband carriers are naturally migrating, all while Netflix stands inside a glass house filled with mis-managed usage pricing practices. 

Netflix as Stone Thrower:

In a concerted campaign for net neutrality regulation that would ban broadband usage caps or pricing, Netflix has generated a:

• Supportive Washington Post blog;
• New York Times editorial,
• Wall Street Journal op-ed,
• Shareholder letter, and
• Faux net neutrality complaint with Level III-Netflix.

Netflix as Glass House:

How Google's deceptive and predatory search practices harm consumers is the focus of Part VIII of my four-year antitrust research series on Google. (See www.Googleopoly.net for the whole series.)

I. Summary:

My Googleopoly VIII white paper here presents evidence of four things of import to the FTC's current antitrust investigation of Google:

To see the first free-market legal argument explaining how Google's market behavior systematically harms consumers under antitrust law, read my Forbes op-ed: "Google's Deceptive Practices Harm Consumers."

• This is important because Google and its defenders believe the benefits Google provides consumers are the bedrock of a winning antitrust defense.

Few have grasped the huge significance that it is the FTC (with its unique supplemental Section 5 authority) and not the DOJ, that is investigating Google for antitrust.

Most also have missed how vulnerable Google is to the charge that many of its marketing practices are illegal deceptive misrepresentations of its business.

My Forbes op-ed link is here.