[P]otential legal problems seem to give the company little pause before it plunges into new ventures.
“I think Google is wanting to push the boundaries,” said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University.
“The Internet ethos of the 90’s, the expansionist ethos, was, ‘Just do it, make it cool, make it great and we’ll cut the rough edges off later,’ ” Professor Zittrain said. “They’re really trying to preserve a culture that says, ‘Just do it, and consult with the lawyers as you go so you don’t do anything flagrantly ill-advised.’ ”...
Professor Zittrain of Oxford said Google’s corporate mantra — “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible” — gives some insight into its approach.
“They actually see that as Promethean,” Mr. Zittrain said. “They think of it as bringing fire to humankind. And it may even cause them to be bolder than other companies.”...
“We’ve got a formidable legal team, but obviously it’s nowhere near the unlimited resources of Google,” said David A. Milman, the chief executive of Rescuecom, a nationwide computer repair company that sued Google on trademark infringement grounds similar to Geico’s — and quickly lost. The company said that it would appeal the decision.
“People say you can’t fight the government,” Mr. Milman said. “Google, in this case, is very similar to the government. They’re the government of the Internet.”
This will be very exciting. I wish Google well!
Posts
11 comments:
I agree. Go Google! Google is a simply a consequence of technology - it just so happens that the company which put the relevant technologies together first was called Google.
Technology changes society, and Google is just driving that change more quickly. As consumers increasingly discover the relevant information themselves, there will be less need for real estate agents, car salesmen, and middlemen of all sorts. Information asymmetry has allowed experts to extract extravagant fees from unsuspecting clients, and that power has been reduced. Google is tipping over a lot of feed bowls, and they'll be sued left and right.
IMO, all these websites suing Google need to take a hike. Google giveth, Google taketh away. They should be happy that they get any traffic at all from Google. Who the hell are they to tell a company what to do with it's own product?
This will be very exciting. I wish Google well!
Suck that corporate cock, baby! Suck it!!!
Or to paraphrase Kent Brockman, "I, for one, welcome my Google overlords!"
dave is ahead of Feder today in their never ending race to the bottom of the cess pool.
Jesus, Dave. Grow up, willya?
I support Google because (and to the extent) that it's on the side of free expression. Google is Blogger and YouTube! I'm on that side. I want the law to unlock and adapt to the new technology, not because I want those people to make money, but because I like what they do.
“to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible”
That's only the 1st part of the mantra. The second part is:
unless you live in China. In that case our mantra is 'To inform the Chinese government when Chinese nationals produce or access information the Chinese government doesn't want them to produce or access.'"
And it is a mistake to equate a company without the ability to use coercion to a government. What does Google do if somebody violates their rights? They go to the government.
Well come on then, Google Developers, post the entire source code for your search engine!
No? Why, would that hurt your business if everyone knew exactly how it worked and could game it into oblivion?
Guess some information doesn't want to be free, and you guys get to define that.
Suck that corporate cock, baby! Suck it!!!
It worries me a little that the only people I've actually met who act like dave are the crazy homeless guys around where I work -- who are, like dave, also prone to follow a woman around, yelling obscene insults about her every action. I forget if there's a specific name for that kind of mental illness or not.
Ann, it's your blog, but is there some reason why dave is still welcome to comment here? I'm not familiar with any actual contribution he's made, and reading around his posts is like stepping around little poodle-bombs left in the grass.
I assume that if you want to embrace freedom of expression you have to do it whole. Since dave is not defamatory why would he be banned?
What Google is doing about her source code is not double standard. I think there is something about releasing work and retain copyright (i.e. selective release), to not releasing something.
Comparing it to GNU Public License. (I hope I am understanding it correctly) It does not force you into releasing any work to public, but if you release it to anyone you cannot control how that person distributes your work.
"I wish Google well."
I hope they choke on a chicken bone.
Post a Comment