Fraud

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.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist blog on Google's disingenuous free market charm offensive at the Heritage Foundation today -- here.

This week's C-Span Communicators show covers the Google Antitrust hearing. See video here.

I was interviewed for fifteen minutes from the Google critic perspective and David Balto was interviewed for fifteen minutes from the Google proponent perspective.

• An interesting contrast one can imagine.

"The Communicators" airs on Saturday at 6:30 ET and on Monday at 8am and 8pm on C-Span2.

My latest Forbes blog: "Google's Bait and Switch Deception Exposed at Hearing" is here.

It describes the overarching and recurring theme of yesterday's Senate Antitrust hearing on Google, that Google built the trust of users and content owners with the bait of representations that Google Search is unbiased and only focused on the user, then once they became dominant, Google pulled the switch, and deceptively changed their business model to favor their own Google content over competitors' content, all while continuing to maintain that their search engine is still unbiased.

See my Forbes post "Google 21st Century Robber Baron" which briefly tells the story of Google's Robber Baron rap sheet, in advance of Google's Wednesday Senate antitrust hearing.

• The post is documented with 79 links to the supporting evidence.

The post also explains why Google's Board of Directors have been AWOL while all this scofflaw behavior has been going on.

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)

The DOJ's very tough enforcement agreement to not criminally prosecute Google for knowingly promoting illegal prescription drug trafficking for six years has many under-appreciated implications for Google's business and brand going forward.(See the DOJ-Google Agreement here and the DOJ's release here.)

• Simply this is a criminal non-prosecution agreement not resolution of a civil case because:
  • Only the criminal statutes that were violated authorize a $500m forfeiture penalty; and
  • The agreement explicitly empowers the Government to criminally prosecute Google at its sole discretion, if it believes Google has violated the agreement.
• In effect, this is a criminal plea bargain where Google agrees to a huge fine, cooperation with the government's ongoing investigations, and two years of probation in return for no criminal prosecution of Google.
  • Reading between the lines, the Government's undercover "sting operation" must have uncovered exceptionally incriminating and embarrassing evidence that Google did not want exposed in a long public criminal trial.