Google has no respect for intellectual property rights.
Google has removed most of the copyrighted material from youtube as far as I can tell and Google's indexing of books doesn't provide people with the whole book, not even the allowable 10% (or thereabouts) under copyright. If anything, it makes people locate suitable materials for purchasing.

Google produces nothing.
Well, they're certainly providing a lot of great "Nothing" tools that we previously had to pay Microsoft a lot for... Gmail, Blogger, YouTube, Docs and Spreadsheets, Desktop, Alerts, Reader... not to mention mobile versions of these products.

Joe, nice article for what will undoubtedly bring you major flack from the usual suspects on MicrosoftWatch.

However, I don't think you really made your point about questionable ethics:

"Google already has demonstrated questionable ethics. The company claims that "You can make money without doing evil." Fine words maybe, but I judge people and companies based on their actions. In May, Google invested $3.9 million in co-founder Sergey Brin's wife's biotech startup 23andMe. There is inherent conflict of interest in the investment, or at least the appearance of it. For a company whose trust is the information most people seek on the Web, even the appearance of conflict of interest should be deterrent enough. But it wasn't."

Granted, giving millions of a company's money to the wife of the founder is certainly suspicious, but if that's all you have to use as an example, I'm not sure that's enough of a "smoking gun" to prove your point.

More of these kinds of examples certainly, but one? Questionable, strange, maybe even out of place. But as a sign of rampant unethical behavior? No, not enough yet. Especially if it turns out to have happened only once.

First you explain how all the concerns about Microsoft were bogus then you cry wolf about Google. Which is it? Is there competition or not?

I wrote:

"MS DID (evil acts), Google COULD do it (may be? perhaps?) Do you think it’s just the same kind of treatment for a guilty of contempt condemned culprit than that for a common citizen (well, rich citizen)?
In the meantime, whilst we are awaiting for the evil acts from Google (MS and fan boys and shills are waiting and hoping that they may come to happen.) . We could remember: Google deliver to us good software: for FREE. MS give to us not very good software: OVERPRICED. Google helps Open Source, while MS wants to get rid of it. Google wants to give a service to us; MS wants to help itself FROM us, etc.

Google it is an alternative to MS’s monopoly simply because there is nothing else able to resist MS’s economic power, and all us are aware that absolute power corrupts. Therefore there is necessary to equilibrate the scale: that is Google’s role.

Do you know the meaning of symbiosis? It describes us our relationship with Google.

I am realistic: if Google’s behaviour changes into MS’s behaviour, then I will change my browser, it is easy (It is easier than changing an OS and Google knows that, and it is a guarantee of good behaviour). Meanwhile, I give credit to Google unlike MS
-----------
There is nothing to change

Have you considered that maybe the powers that be want Google to become a monopoly? That way, they can step in and fine Google millions and millions later on.
This theory accomplishes a few things:
1. Keeps a lot of people busy and paid (esp. lawyers)
2. Sets an example that this type of thing is a no no
3. Put restrictions on what Google can/can't do while making money at the same time.

If the powers that be simply said no merger possible because you would become a monopoly, then no money is made, lawyers would be bored, and no new laws to to keep the lawmakers happy.

Just a thought.

Have you considered that maybe the powers that be want Google to become a monopoly? That way, they can step in and fine Google millions and millions later on.
This theory accomplishes a few things:
1. Keeps a lot of people busy and paid (esp. lawyers)
2. Sets an example that this type of thing is a no no
3. Put restrictions on what Google can/can't do while making money at the same time.

If the powers that be simply said no merger possible because you would become a monopoly, then no money is made, lawyers would be bored, and no new laws to to keep the lawmakers happy.

Just a thought.

mikey wrote: "First you explain how all the concerns about Microsoft were bogus then you cry wolf about Google. Which is it? Is there competition or not?"

Hi, Mikey,

I said that concerns about Microsoft as gatekeeper to the Internet turned out to be wrong. But Microsoft was still found to have had a dangerous monoply, which I stated.

My point: Those concerns raised about Microsoft might come true after all, with Google.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Sorry, but i don't see the correlation between someone trying to bend the internet to make all/most of the information on the web only viewable using one piece of software and google's operations. Could you elaborate in a reply or a different post?

Google commanded 55% of the October 2007 search engine market.

What percentage of the desktop OS market did Microsoft command in Oct 2007? 90% 95% Higher?

The migration process from the search services of Google to Yahoo, MSN, or another rival involves typing yahoo.com instead of typing google.com in your browser's address bar.

What's the migration path from Windows?

The new Microsoft is Microsoft!

Personally I would be a little more concerned about the way that various pharmaceutical, agribusiness and media outfits control what most people consume - and which also throw their weight around globally. Next to them, the various IT corporations are kittens.

That said, there should be nothing surprising about Google's path here. The people and the business culture are the same. Just look at the sheer number of ex-MS executives and others who moved to Google over the last 5 years. Many of them are doing EXACTLY the same things as they did at Microsoft. Their original efforts, good or bad, were stifled because of knee-jerk reaction to Microsoft, but passed without a mention when implemented by Google.

Even without those, America's business schools are still turning out the same sort of people who will go after the same opportunities when attached to broadly influential companies.

There is nothing intrinsically bad about Microsoft, many of whose founders and employees make outstanding contributions to the social good in a way that no other software corporation has. However the *capability* of the company amplifies the problems inherent in American business and political life.

Microsoft as "controller" of the desktop has been a far more benevolent ruler than almost any comparable operation. Apple is even more rigorously excluding of competition in its sphere. OEMs who fought for access to the Windows desktop sold out immediately by flooding it with crapware and phone-home program stubs.

As gatekeeper of information, I think Google has done an admirable job. They will remain a good gatekeeper as long as their Pageranks and other algorithms remain as unbiased as possible.

When their business practices begin to reward those with money with poor-quality data over those that have good-quality data, then I would suspect their business practices are corrupted. So far, I have not seen that. Google has been fighting click-fraud, protecting PCs, giving away a lot of free services, and making money on advertising. Their products are of good quality and their main products are often the best-of-breed.

Joe, that's right the gatekeeper information was wrong!! Microsoft supposely spends $20 Million dollars each year in Research and Developement, that's bull#@!#! They spend $20 Million in paid bloggers and paid messageboard posters(shills), trying to brainwash the world into thinking that they have the technology that they say they do!

VCSY is the patent holders of SiteFlash(744) and the XML Enabler(521) that is whatm Microsoft has been trying to claim the work of to the world all these years. Now Microsoft is trying to put little VCSY out of business by dragging out their infringement lawsuit and hoping they can outlast the smaller company, so they have free reign to VCSY's patents!!
Ask Bill about "his" XML dream and who holds those patents, he'll just continue to pass the buck, while they continue to try and harm little VCSY out of existance.

All these messageboard posters who fight against what Portuno Diamo is saying, they are the ones who distort the truth!!

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/VCSY.OB

LISTEN TO PORTUNO DIAMO!!!!!!!!!!!

FTC Clears Google-DoubleClick Merger
/www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2238219,00.asp
Google's $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick cleared U.S. regulators Dec. 20 with a 4-1 vote of the Federal Trade Commission. After an eight-month review of the merger, the FTC concluded the deal is "unlikely to substantially lessen competition."

---------
No comment.

What exactly does Google have a monopoly over??

Search - No, your stats show Google has a large share but nowhere near a monopoly.

'Information' - No, the information Google has is mostly open to the public... Anyone can create their own store of information and do whatever they like with it.

'Gateway to the internet' - Hardly, IE and Windows are certainly at the gateway but not Google. People have to make a choice to visit google and they can change very easily.

You say

"Google and the Web 2.0 platform definitely compete with Microsoft software."

But then go onto say how Google are at risk of developing a monopoly. How on earth can a monopoly have competition? Are you saying that Microsoft will disappear and only Google will be left?

I hate to break it to you but the OS is still a necessary layer in computing and Web 2.0 or whatever is not going to change that.

Joe, Microsoft did succed in becoming the gatekeeper to the internet. It was called IE 6 and to some extent Exchange. It was like the Matrix a prison you could not see, hear or smell. Most people didn't know how trully limited they were and a great deal of sites followed in said limitation.

The problem isn't that Google becomes a monopoly. The problem is that when it does become so it starts producing sloppy products. Which is what has become of Microsoft in the last 5 years.

When Microsoft was trully at its monopoly's height I never stopped using their software. It was only after one sees how many rewrites you have to do to your brain to understand the "new OS" or the "new development tool" (can we read MCSE certification over and over again) do you begin to question the benefit of the product and the company.

Just like that, Google can also loose its customers. Google does not own the information it indexes. That is still kept in the servers it was published in. It doesn't own your desktop (unlike Microsoft who insists it does). So you can always start using another search engine that has indexed the same info. If by chance Google does ever offer payment for "better indexing" then that day will mark the end of Google. Users will no longer trust it and neither will its advertisers.

So who agrees with how Microsoft goes about their everyday business?

And if you don't believe in conspiracies:

Read this about how Microsoft treated patents as they dealt with Burst, Eolas and VCSY and I think maybe you'll begin believing that large companies all feel it's their right to take IP if the company is about to go bankrupt or they can be bullied into submission.

Boy have you guys got an awakening happening.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1279647&mid=1279647&tof=1&frt=2

I-Man Just got my thousand dollar Christmas bonus from Bill himself personal delivered to me. Thanx Bill. That is almost too funny to laugh at a budget of $20 million for shills and paid bloggers. And ALL the content that can be found at research.microsoft.com is not real. Part of our job is to no only write on blogs but to write fake articles for research.microsoft.com. Got to go I think I see a black helicopter flying over my house.

Microsoft was punished for abusing their monopoly power after they actually did it. Do you really think we should punish Google before they do something wrong? This is America. Innocent until proven guilty.

Google can never really become a monopoly because it will never ending up commanding the kind of market share Microsoft did. There is zero switching cost. It is very easy to switch search engines.

Google will be dominant but I doubt whether it can use its monopoly like Microsoft did which was offering free versions of its competitors software. Google tried to copy Youtube, Paypal etc. with very little success.

What's worse ahead for Google is that in a few years time Wall Street is not going to value Google at its current earnings multiple. None of the markets Google is pursuing is proving to be profitable so far.

So I am pretty happy with the demise of Microsoft and don't see Google as ever becoming a monopoly.

Regards.

Augustus

Your article is interesting but you have forgotten a very big factor: MS. I will make a comparison: in WW2 the problem was Germany(Ms) and the Allies fought her, but if you had been the adviser, the Allies would have fought themselves and Germany
would have triumphed (thank God you were not the adviser). It is true there are always risks, but something that divides fiction of reality is the "It is" to "It could be". It is always a good thing to take precautions but if it is only a by a click we could avoid the paranoia(click: change of browser)
Even more: MS’s behaviour and economic power make Google necessary
--------
Mark D : "Are you saying that Microsoft will disappear and only Google will be left?"
Good point.

I don't subscribe to everything Joe wrote, but so many of these comments are arguing a point that he never tried to make. He didn't say, "Google has a monopoly and must be stopped!" He said Google could very well be headed down that path with the DoubleClick acquisition, which is a valid concern.

Before you comment, read the entire post, think, and when you have actually understood what he's saying, argue that, not some off-the-wall conclusions he never drew.

There are three things I don't agree with.

1. Google is a house hold brand now, like kleenix. They may leech off others information, but its for public consumption anyway, how else are you going to find information and products? HOw do you think I found Microsoft-watch? I just started typing in random website addresses?

That is a service, they are making money off of that service, not leeching off of others. They developed the platform, algorithms for search and everything else I use on a daily basis ( gmail, docs and spreadsheets, calender etc.)

Their biggest strength and microsfot's biggest headache is they DON'T make money off of products and licenses like microsoft does. Therefore, no way to stop them in the traditional sense like Netscape.

So good for google, now if we can just get them to put out a Google branded linux distro microsoft would really start feeling "competition".

Google has a lot of competition, yes everyone added up equals there's but its nothing like how microsoft lacks competition in the os. You can barely get 10 percent market share when you add up all competition together.

Let's also not forget, ask.com and microsoft, even yahoo are not standing still. Microsoft brags about how much money they are throwing into the search market. No return yet, but they are a bottomless pit. If they have to pay everyone a dime every serach they do to gain some market share they will do it.

Joe,
This google is evil thing, or google will become evil, is perhaps overblown compared with the present evil and past, of Microsoft.

About the only two things evil I can see that Google has done, is the storage of searches for too long, and their relationship and kowtowing to Red China.

Now on both of the points, lets discuss them. Red China, sure Google is wrong there, and should just get out of that market, but of the three, Google. Yahoo, and Microsoft, Google comes in as number 3, the lowest of the offenders in Red China. Why, cause Yahoo is number one, helping turn in IP addresses of dissidents, and Microsoft number two, with their active cooperation with filtering software and other activities.

As far as keeping searches too long, MS has the most dismal record here, with search records being put up in archives for companies to be downloaded, at least until the new organizations got hold of that one.

So could Google become evil, sure, any company can. But MS already has been and still is. But look at Google's motto, of do no evil. Maybe, just maybe, Google is the company that occasionally makes a few mistakes, but is not evil, unlike M$, which only does good things to camouflage all the bad.

Also Joe, you keep making the point that MS being a monopoly does not mean it has done anything illegal. Perhaps you should remember the reason it lost the “Monopoly” case with the DOJ in the USA was because of the way M$ integrated Internet Employer web browser into the Windows OS, and gave it away for free, as a means to destroy arch rival competition Netscape. Part of this process, is called dumping, and is illegal. Also, if you are not familiar with the old court case of Stac Electronics vs Microsoft, look that one up. It was about code stealing. And how many patents have companies taken MS to court in the past few years and won, BTW? Sounds illegal to me.

Just my thoughts on this, and thank you for letting me post them.

Questionable ethics:
Allowing censorship in China - they knew it was wrong, yet they could not resist. The size of the opportunity was just too big. Sure they were not the only ones, but "do no evil", my ass.

Google is already an information gatekeeper.
I might argue that a company that depends on its Google-provided ranking is a company that itself is pretty much devoid of much real value. A company that wants to be ranked highly in its market has only itself to blame if it doesn't invest in its own sales, marketing, and products. If your business model depends on your Google ranking, you don't have much of a business.
I also find Google to be the #1 on-line help engine for Linux operating systems, open-source applications, commercial applications, and Microsoft operating systems. If any of those commercial entities produced better on-line help, then there wouldn't be a need for the Google alternative.
There is inherent conflict of interest between Google information gathering and selling stuff around the information.
eData, aka Seisint, aka a division of Lexus-Nexus, and its earlier sibling Database Technologies took data mining to a degree that no one has before or since. And they do it all with publically-available information (some freely accessible, some available for purchase, some available only to certified professions, but none of it stolen).
But only Google offers email with huge data limits, and free 411 service, and then uses that for a source of mining. Yes, it is a bit scary, I suppose.
Google's business model leaches off the good work of others.
Most businesses do. For example, how many lines of code do the CEOs of IBM, HP, and Sun write? And yet these software company CEOs are the most highly compensated employees, leaching off the good work of the people who actually write and test and support the software.
But closer to Google's model, Garmin doesn't create any of the landmarks, roads, airports, mountains, VORs, and other real-world entities they show. They only produce the abstract images of these items, the directions to these items, and the ability to search them all in real time.
Google and Garmin provide a lot of value by offering search and display. As do those CEOs who provide value by organizing the environment in which the programmers can produce software and in which the sales people can sell it.
Does Garmin produce nothing because it doesn't produce any of the entities that it searches and displays? Does Google produce nothing because you are too blind to see their server-based search facilities or their Google appliances, their Picassa application, their Google Earth application?
Google has no respect for intellectual property rights.
I seriously doubt that the phrase "intellectual property rights" has any real meaning whatsoever. You have to back it up with specifics such as copyrights, patents, and other phrases that have real meaning. And for those specific areas, Google has a lot more respect than Microsoft ever has and likely ever will.
But I can see the counter arguments. There is an example of sheer idiocy in Scotland in which a car repair garage is being sued because its employees' radios could be heard by the public and that is deemed to constitute an unlicensed public broadcast of copyrighted works.
In that context, then yes, Google has no respect for the intellectual property of others. And neither do I, when I give directions to a stranger without asking for permission to publically mention a business's name and describe its campus to that stranger. And woe be to me if I am ever caught singing in the shower if that song is a copyrighted tune, I have paid no license to rebroadcast, and a member of the general public is within earshot of bathroom window. (And woe be to that member of the general public who endures my less-than-skillful performance!)
If you want to see examples of companies who fit your description of producing nothing, and only leaching off the good work of others, look past Microsoft and Google, and look to the patent trolls who buy up patents with the goal of suing others for infringement. Those companies truly produce nothing at all of value.

Chips argument that "Microsoft only does good to camouflage the bad" is painfully sophomoric.

I would argue that any operating system without a web-browser is near worthless in this age. Don't forget that Mark Andreessen of Netscape openly challenged Microsoft, setting off the "browser wars", and creating an incredible volume of landfill with give-away CDs to install Netscape.

The future that Google gives us, is one of ads lining the edge of every bit of online space we view whether it be on the PC, phone or other device.

As far as intellectual property rights goes, I think that Google is on the back foot compared to Microsoft. Look at the huge amount of credit that Microsoft gives to other companies whose work they've licensed. Compare Google who repackages the work of news agencies around the world without any compensation.

What a ridiculous article.

Re-read it again - this is a beef about Google, not about any sort of monopoly that will be created by buying Double-Click. OK, we get it, you don't like Google... but If you are going to make an argument against buying Double Click, why not make your points relevent to that?

What a poor article and poor use of logic.

What a load of @#$%. Google is popular because they are the best search engine. Try some of the others and see. I use the other occasionally just to make sure I'm not being prejudiced and they suck. Calling Google evil because they deliver search results is like calling the trucking industry evil because they don't own the goods they are transporting and delivering.

Yea, I must agree, Wilcox is full of bs.

He forgets that Microsoft has been found
guilty on two continents (soon to be 3) of
criminal behavior and stifling innovation.

It is stunning that Gates and Ballmer are
not in jail, thus, apologizing for Microsoft
gets us nowhere and is obviously NOT a great
career move for Joe.....

Dave Says :
".It is stunning that Gates and Ballmer are
not in jail, ...apologizing for Microsoft gets us nowhere and is obviously NOT a great
career move for Joe...."

@Dave :
"Obviously" Joe doesn't think so.

Joe is oblivious to Microsoft history and should not pass himself off as a historian.
If he was the least bit informed, he wouldn’t write such a stupid article.
I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it. I’ll unsubscribe in an effort to miss his future waste of electronic space.

Um, Joe, apparently you checked your business sense at the door? "Google produces nothing"? How about the service we all use daily?... "questionable ethics"? Obviously Sergey and wife didn't need the money for her company, so there must have been some other business reason for the investment, and I can think of several; in any event, it's the weakest possible example where there are others to be found that make more sense. Also, you completely forget the fundamental caveat to the fact that the information Google mines is "free" (which it's not, by the way -- the cost of capturing and indexing the Web is hosting the one of the largest server farms in the world!). That caveat is that there is nothing stopping a Google competitor from entering the market since the root information is free to all, not just Google. Of course, capital, time, and the intellectual resources to make a more worthwhile engine are real barriers, but not ones that Google has any monopoly over. Unlike with Microsoft, whose monopoly was based on the high practical cost of switching providers (of office applications and other OS-specific user content), there is virtually *zero* switching cost for users to go to another search engine, and hence no monopoly, even if you're wedded to some of their other applications. If www.google.com suddenly redirected to www.yahoo.com, would more than 1% of users really care? There's a monopoly test!

I don't know about all of you, but DoubleClick is blocked on my computer. SpywareBlaster, Spybot Search and Destroy, etc all block DoubleClick.

Personally, I'm not sure why Google is even bothering with DoubleClick.

Let's look at the falsehoods in this article:

First, Joe's attempt to plant the idea that such a thing as a "Google monopoly" exists. (A monopoly over what?)

"Information gatekeeper": Nope. They have no information locked away, not even the stuff they've dug up and made available with their own hard work (like the partial access to lots of books).

"inherent conflict of interest between Google information gathering and selling stuff around the information". Not so far. They clearly mark out the paid hit results from the non-advertising links. They seem to be smart enough to realise that if they don't continue doing that, then their search results simpy won't be as useful, so they will automatically drop in popularity.

"Google has already demonstrated questionable ethics". Huh? A company has invested in another company. That's diversification. It's even in a completely separate field, so it's not like heading towards a monopoly. I simply don't see any logic to this piece of FUD.

"Google's business model leaches off the good work of others". Whoah! A big No on this one! They provide the internet's best search engine, for free. It doesn't leach off other people's good work, it magnifies the value of other people's good work, by making it discoverable. It unlocks the value of this good work. So the exact opposite of the claim is true here.

"Google has no respect for intellectual property rights". The copyright book scanning was within the bounds of fair use: you can't download a whole book, but you can search to find stuff in it. In other words, they're making old printed books discoverable. If you want the books, you still have to go and buy them. IMHO, that whole story was a beat-up by technophobes or muddled thinkers. As for youtube, the RIAA still doesn't seem to understand that making portions of your information available is basically free advertising. All those idiots need to do to make money from working with sites like youtube is to provide a link to *buy* the content of the larger piece of work that the youtube excerpts come from. But the RIAA is still in the mindset that it must be in total control of what people do with the content that the RIAA middlemen promote and advertise. Gee, could that be because the internet is making middlemen obsolete? Gosh, where would be be without record companies creating and pushing plastic new stars at the public (while simultaneously bleeding the new performers dry in unfair contracts)? How would people find out about them? Could it possibly be: through youtube, and search engines?

Give us a break, we're not morons.

And after all this, Joe still hasn't defined what he means by this viral meme of the "Google monopoly" that he's trying to plant in people's brains. Monopoly over what?

I'm just trying to figure out why anyone would write such a piece. Surely he can't believe the nonsense he wrote here: he can't really be that ill-informed, can he? Yet I doubt that Joe is directly in Microsoft's employ: that would be too obvious. I suppose it could be that if his job is watching Microsoft, then he benefits from having Microsoft sound interesting, as long as he can. Or maybe it's simply that he benefits by writing silly but controversial articles that generate lots of viewings? Whatever, my respect for the editorial fairness of eWeek has taken a big hit from this article.

luke

I am just so tired of Google and Microsoft monopoly and conspiracy theories. And I think the whole intellectual property rights think is bunk too.

I do like the point about Google producing nothing. I often think that, and it makes for a good sound bite. But ultimately it is not true. Google spends tons of money gathering information and making it available in a way that is useful. That's a product. It isn't hard to find many examples of people who have been doing this same type of thing long before the internet. Plus there are their tools - Google Docs, Gmail, Reader, etc.

I just worry about the day when the bottom drops out of its advertising based income schemes and their stock suddenly drops by 50%. It'll be a rough day for everyone, even those who don't own the stock directly.

It is a monopoly, but it is incorrect to compare it to the types of monopolies in the past. Things like "competition is just a click away" indicate a misunderstanding or an intent to deceive. The reality is, is that online monopolies are new and there is nothing quite like them. I have thought of this every day for about two years (not full-time ; ) ). This is the model I discovered:

1) Google controls the ad space
2) Google can "out monetize" any "internet service" by using their superior ad inventory
3) "internet service" does not include retail/commerce product-related sites
4) Google can therefore out-compete any up and coming web service
5) The money Google makes from the ads goes back into improving the service
6) The ads strengthen their other services, and the services strengthen their ads
7) The more services that display their ads, the more advertisers they get, and the more they can monetize services
8) Their strength grows unbounded in a feedback loop
9) The monopoly of the network is quite different and arguably superior to monopolies of lore, notably desktop/software monopolies

Examples:
Take the search space. Their ad dominance gives the funds to improve their search relevance, which grows in popularity and thus feedback into the ads.

Now they are seeking to beat wikipedia using knol, and their ad market dominance.

and Google pays "portal" companies CPM rates 15-20 times over fair market value to show their search results and ads to their users. Thus starving out any google competitors using a stack of cash.

and, yes, they do have a better mousetrap, inarguably, but it is very difficult for anyone to compete against them because of the amount of cash their ad monopoly generates, because a lot of that cash goes back into making the mousetrap better and better.

imho, they really should be broken up into 3 pieces:

1) the ad group. the ads should be made equally available to all companies, so everyone can monetize their web services at the same rate. this will help level the landscape.

2) the search group. their search is already very powerful, and, like ads, can also significantly enhance the value of other web services. so it should be carved out.

3) all the other services. news. maps. groups. orkut. etc.