Fraud

In compiling and ranking the top threats facing Google, I was amazed at the breadth, depth, diversity and seriousness of the threats and liabilities facing Google.

Please see my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn the ranking of what threats to Google are most serious and why.

As the Senate prepares to vote on the fate of the FCC's net neutrality regulations this week, it's instructive to look more closely at the politics of regulating the Internet.

Read my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here.

Pending anti-piracy legislation (Senate: PROTECT IP, House: SOPA) is very likely to become law in 2012.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn why, and why it is important.

For those interested in powerful evidence that many parts of Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's Senate antitrust testimony September 21st under oath were apparently false, deceptive or misleading, please don't miss Foundem's 29 minute annotated fact-checking video of Mr. Schmidt's testimony.

• Foundem, a British product search competitor that has filed an antitrust suit against Google in the EU, has both the expertise and detailed-knowledge-base to fact-check and challenge Google's apparently extensive prevarication before the Senate.
• Using Mr. Schmidt's own responses to questions under oath, Foundem repeatedly provides evidence that Google apparently provided false, deceptive or misleading answers to questions about potential illegal anti-competitive behavior by Google.
• The video is must viewing for investigators of Google's antitrust alleged violations at the EU, the FTC, the DOJ, Korea, the Attorneys General of at least Texas, California, and New York; as well as the members and staff of the Senate and House Antitrust subcommittees responsible for overseeing the enforcement of antitrust laws.

In a nutshell, the video shows how Mr. Schmidt's responses to several questions about whether Google biases its search results for Google's benefit apparently are untrue or deceptive.

It also provides strong evidence supporting the conclusions of Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Mike Lee that:

How could Google fail to meet the security needs of the City of Los Angeles in its trophy government cloud contract?

Learn why in my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, entitled "Google Too Fast and Loose for LAPD."

A Google engineer's rant about how Google does not "get" platforms creates the opportunity to learn why Google does not aspire to be a platform like its competitors do.

• See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here: "Why Google's not a Platform."

Google's 3Q11 earnings call and release provided lots of new and relevant evidence to the many antitrust investigations of Google going on around the world.

• See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here that explains the four big antitrust takeaways from the Google earnings call.

Given that Apple and Google are the #1 and #2 most valuable brands in the world and that Google has invaded all of Apple’s markets in the last few years as a new competitor, it is illuminating and instructive to compare and contrast the radically different visions, values, and standards, of Apple’s former leader Steve Jobs and Google’s current CEO Larry Page.

• See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post: "Jobs' Apple Standard vs. Page's Google Standard" here.

Brandi Sparkles, Google's satirical spokesperson, returns for a press conference to explain Google's new Trusted Stores Badge.

• See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here. Enjoy!

Much of Google's claimed innovation actually depends upon anti-competitive infringement of others property and privacy.

• See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post: Google's "Infringenovation" Secrets here.