Xooglers Can Define Evil and Want a Judge to Validate Their Definition
December 2, 2021
I read “Google: Former Employees Sue Tech Giant for Allegedly Breaching Don’t Be Evil Pledge.” Nope, not a joke. When I first heard a real live Google spout this phrase to me at a search conference in 1999 in Boston, I thought the shy, perspiring billionaire to be was pulling my leg. I still think that the don’t be evil thing—alleged crafted by Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel — was a high school science club thing. Companies run by anyone but the Googlers had to be evil. The Googlers were a force for good. Right?
Now three employees, assisted by a mini-flock of legal eagles, want to make the company pay big bucks for pitching the don’t be evil line for years. The phrase found its way into assorted company information outputs. I thought I saw it on a Google booth tchotchke shortly after my interaction with the Google billionaire to be in Boston.
How could “real” attorneys, hired by the ultimate science club, use the phrase don’t be evil in corporate outputs? Easy. Lawyers, once housed in trailers, a kilometer from the “real” office were nuisances to be tolerated. The “good” lawyers mostly did what they were supposed to do and rolled with the sci-club.
The write up reports:
The trio had raised concerns at town halls and other forums inside Google about the company potentially selling cloud technology to immigration authorities in the United States, which at the time were engaging in detention tactics considered inhumane by activists.
This appears to be an example of evil.
Perhaps there will be some existential moments in this matter. Google will have to offer an example of being good. Who will decide? A lawyer. Hopefully a member of the high school science club and a person who understands that saying something doesn’t mean anything when money is involved in Silicon Valley.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2021
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
