Google and Italy: More Hassles
March 17, 2010
Short honk: “Italy Goes after Google over AdSense Payments” revealed that Google has more hassles in Italy. The story in SEO Roundtable pointed out:
Italy is “going after Google for how they pay Italian AdSense publishers.”
The issue is that Google does not provide much detail about how it figures payments. SEO Roundtable noted that there has not been much coverage of this dust up. Interesting? The addled goose’s has noted that his AdSense payments have traditionally drifted down when a quarter is closing. Now there appears to be other concerns about payment predictability. Could the effectiveness of online ads been decreasing and Google is just a barometer of the economic downturn? Could an algorithm be stumbling? No solid information at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since it is an international post, I will report non payment to the Department of State.
The Open Source Card in Apple HTC Dust Up
March 17, 2010
The goslings and I are not attorneys. We are addled geese, and we do not understand the ins and outs of litigation. The article “Apple’s HTC Patent Lawsuit Is a Bluff” presented some angles on the Apple HTC patent matter. HTC seems to be a more convenient target than Google because HTC is manufacturing Android phones. These devices have some shared DNA with Apple’s iPhone. The write up suggests that Apple is engaging in some saber rattling. Litigation is expensive and risky, particularly if the parties cannot reach an out of court settlement. Juries can be darned exciting. For me, the most surprisingly passage in the write up was:
Android’s open-source status creates all kinds of logistical and legal problems for Apple. The company really doesn’t want to be labeled with a big Scarlet Letter as an open-source opponent. Apple has benefitted from open-source community development. It’s a vocal group Apple doesn’t want to piss off. Then there are all the nasty legal issues and potentially damaging precedents should Apple make a frontal open-source assault.
Android, as new Googler Tim Bray pointed out recently, is not about open source. The idea is that Apple does not want to be hoisted on the open source noose.
My view is that open source is becoming a highly charged phrase. Marketers, programmers, and investors have their own view of the concept. If the write up is correct, will Google use its open source approach to create more problems for Apple? There are some advantages associated with open source. But there are also some advantages associated with the proprietary approaches taken by companies like Apple.
Open source “plays” have a dual nature. Viewed one way, open source decreases the “lock in” that most vendors covet. Viewed another, open source could be a kinder, gentler form of getting people into a more spacious walled garden.
One thing is certain. The Apple patent matter will be with us for many months and there will be twists and turns as Apple builds out its server centers, gets serious about search, and expands into cloud services for its chain of devices.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2010
Free. The bane of real journalists. I did this without compensation or the hope thereof, and I will report this to the event manager at the National Press Club.
Hating Search
March 14, 2010
I think search sucks. I don’t hate search. Rupert Murdoch has a different view. Navigate to “Video: Rupert Murdoch Loves the iPad, Hates Search”. The idea is that the “legendary founder of News Corp.” is not happy with “the content stealer.” What’s interesting to me is that this message about hating search is delivered in electronic form and appears to reference a video. There’s a great quote in the write up as well in my opinion:
But search on the Internet whether it be Bing or Google, whatever, it’s free and they simply take all our expensive and we think very good content such as Wall Street Journal or whatever and what they call they scrape it and they use it for search, it gives them their raw material for nothing and then they have this very clever business model of charging for searching it, we don’t get any of that. And they are technologically brilliant, they are a long way ahead but they do not have the right to do it if we want to stop them.”
My view is a little different. The question is, “What about Facebook and Twitter?”
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2010
No one paid me to point out that Google is not rowing its boat in the social media river quite as quickly as some other firms. Because I reference water, I will report non payment for this write up to the Maritime Administration * and * the Coast Guard.
Google and Information
March 9, 2010
Media Maverick Greg Sansoval’s “Google Reluctant to Release Info in Viacom Case” presented some interesting information. The idea is that Google does not want to have certain information floating around. What information? The documents related to the $1.0 billion Viacom litigation. Ah, juicy information. For me, the most important comment in the write up was:
For three years now, Google and Viacom have exchanged hundreds of thousands of pages of deposition transcripts, e-mails, and other data during a lengthy discovery process. Most of the information has been kept under seal, thanks to a protective order, which was negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Now, Viacom wants to unseal all but the most sensitive of trade secrets within two weeks and Google wants to wait until June 4. Google says it would be a “logistical nightmare” to release information piecemeal before the sides finish arguing their cases. Courts typically prefer to keep records open to the public, but there are exceptions, most often in criminal or civil cases involving national security. In civil suits, some material can be kept under seal in order to protect trade secrets. What’s not clear is why the material in the Viacom vs. Google case is under seal.
My take on this is that the depositions include information that will provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Google’s digital fingerprints and other interesting aspects of the matter. My hunch is that if these materials become available, a number of useful nuggets will emerge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write this news item. Since I mention a legal matter, I will report non payment to the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Godzilla Haiku
March 5, 2010
In 2004, I started describing Google as Googzilla. No one really picked up on this word. I keep using it. Now that Google has lots of legal woes, many enemies, and has to go to the United Nations to get help with China, this picture struck me as poignant.
The source is http://i.imgur.com/E7K36.jpg.
Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I suppose Googzilla is related to UFOs. The outfit that once had an affinity for UFOs and missing hard drives is LANL. I will report unidentified no payment to this fine group.
Recommind and Predictive Coding
March 2, 2010
I received a flood of “news” from vendors chasing the legal market. Now law firms have fallen on hard times. One quip making the rounds in Kentucky is that a law degree is as valuable as a degree in Harry Potter studies from Frostburg State. I did not know one could get a degree in Harry Potter, so this may be some cheap jibe at the expense of attorneys.
The real action for legal licensing is in the enterprise. In the lousy financial climate, its seems that lawyering should be done in doors and back at the ranch. The demand for software and services that can chop discovery down to a management hunk of work have been selling. I prepared a legal market briefing for a couple of clients last year, and I was surprised at how much churn was underway in the segment. Even storage vendor Seagate poked its nose into the eDiscovery market.
I was delighted to receive a file from a reader that had the title “An Interview with Craig Carpenter of Recommind: A Discussion on Predictive Coding.” My recollection was that Recommind’s Mr. Carpenter, a polymath and attorney, was working on Recommind marketing. He is also a vice president of Recommind and teaches at the University of San Francisco. His focus in his class work is high technology marketing, content management, and digital rights management. Heady stuff.
You can get a copy of this document from JD Supra, whose tag line is “Give Content. Get Noticed.” I had not heard of this service previously.
Several points in the interview struck me as interesting. Let me highlight these and offer some of the ideas flapping around my goose brain.
First, Recommind won an award as the best product in the Knowledge Management Systems category. I think that is a good marketing angle, but I do not know what “knowledge management” means. Mr. Carpenter explained Recommind’s “knowledge management” product this way:
MindServer Search is our flagship enterprise search product. It provides highly accurate and relevant search results through a simple, intuitive interface. It uses proprietary, machine learning technology to automatically create concept models based on the information within the enterprise. That gives it the unique ability to accurately identify and rank relevant information for each user without the need for additional input from the user. For our legal customers, we also offer a popular Matters and Expertise module for MindServer Search, which enables them to find all relevant matter information and expertise within the firm. The module’s Expertise Location feature automatically updates areas of expertise based on work product, projects, clients, etc., which makes it simple to find attorneys with relevant experience on a particular topic, as well as the documents and matters associated with them.
Well and good, but I think this is search, retrieval, and social graph functions. That means that I understand Recommind’s definition of “knowledge management.”
Second, Recommind offers a description of its “knowledge management” system. The elements are CORE (context optimized relevance engine), which I believe is a probability based method somewhat akin to Autonomy’s approach. But the interesting statement, in my opinion, was:
There’s no doubt Predictive Coding is accurate enough – this has been proven in many cases. A number of AmLaw 30 firms have proven it by using Predictive Coding and comparing it to the results from contract attorney review (and partner review as well) on the same data. The results in every case were that they achieved better accuracy with Predictive Coding, and in the process saved 50-80% of what they would have spent on traditional review because contract attorneys were either not needed or were able to work far more efficiently (or both). This is what we mean when we talk about revolutionizing the economics of eDiscovery; no one else is doing this.
Third, this system’s automated methods can be used in legal matters. I found this statement interesting:
Judges care about getting to a just result as efficiently as possible; they care far less about the means used to get to that result – so long as the means do not undermine the pursuit of justice. So judges are not in the business of ?validating? any particular technology or process. That said, given the broken economics of today’s eDiscovery judges have definitely been expressing a fervent desire for a better approach to document review, and prominent judges like Judge Facciola, Grimm and Peck have indicated that technology can and should be brought to bear on the problem, because it can really help. It’s important to look at how the top litigation firms have responded now that they have a mandate from judges to change the economics of eDiscovery. And if you look at the top firms in the world — WilmerHale, Morgan Lewis and Fulbright & Jaworski, just to name three — they have made a commitment to Predictive Coding as the future. That’s a very, very strong endorsement.
Endorsements are good marketing, but in my limited experience with the legal system, what’s okay and what’s not okay can be variable.
Fourth, the role of humans remains important. I found this statement interesting:
There will always be a need for human review in eDiscovery. But bear in mind that the traditional eDiscovery process relies on an outdated, paper-based model that requires attorneys to sit in a room and review terabytes of ESI, one at a time. That’s a textbook example of work that should be assisted by intelligent automation. With the continuing rise of eDiscovery, there will always be plenty of work for attorneys. Some firms, and some clients, will always want to have an attorney’s eye on every document – which does not at all preclude the use of Predictive Coding. Even in such a case, they can perform that task much faster and more consistently using Predictive Coding.
Fifth, this comment about the cost of the system was instructive. This is the relevant passage:
We have certainly added more choices to our price list to accommodate the overwhelming demand we’ve seen, but if you are asking if we have had to lower our prices the answer is not at all. It’s definitely the case that much of the eDiscovery process, including culling, processing, hosting and forensic imaging, has been commoditized; older vendors trying to maintain market share and the rather simplistic appliance offerings and vendors have pushed this trend. But where we play and what our products are capable of doing for clients – Predictive Coding being perhaps the best example – is nowhere near becoming commoditized. The basic problem with eDiscovery is that it still uses the paper-based, linear review model, even though 99% of information these days is digital. Most EDD products try to alleviate the symptoms of that problem rather than address the problem itself, e.g. ?better linear review, a simple culling appliance, etc. Those technologies are commoditized now or will soon be. But we attack the fundamental problems of eDiscovery, the illness rather than its symptoms. Predictive Coding doesn’t just streamline document review for human reviewers-though it delivers that too-it actually automates the majority of the process using intelligent technology and defensible workflow. That’s something no other company or technology can deliver – period. And because it truly is game-changing technology, law firms and clients alike are more than willing to pay a premium. After all, it will save them a tremendous amount of time and money so the investment is easy to justify. Because this is so unique and such a difficult problem, in spite of a noisy market there’s no danger those capabilities will be commoditized any time soon.
If true, it suggests that the statistical methods used by other vendors such as Autonomy and Google, for example, should perform in a similar manner.
My view on this automation and prediction angle is that Recommind’s approach works well. If we accept that statement, what will happen if Autonomy or Google offers a lower-cost service. Might that shift some customers toward the lower-cost service. Numbers are numbers.
In a price war, Google—if it decides to push into the legal sector—might have an advantage over Autonomy with nearly $800 million in annual revenues. Recommind’s argument sets the stage for an interesting dynamic if larger firms go after this sector offering more value per dollar.
Excitement ahead in the fiercely contested and tumultuous legal market I “predict”.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Since I mentioned legal activity, I will report a no fee write up to the DOJ, an organization which cares about the law.
Open Source: Magic or Dirty Carpet?
February 25, 2010
I have to give the Guardian a pat on the back. I try to ignore open source, and my feedreaders keeps routing me open source articles. I ignore most of them. The Google-spider food headline, “When Using Open Source Makes You an Enemy of the State”, arrested me (no pun intended). The main idea is that copyright and intellectual property has another mini-storm front brewing. The key passage pivots on a person named Andres Guadamuz, a law professor in Scotland. The Guardian reported:
Guadamuz has done some digging and discovered that an influential lobby group is asking the US government to basically consider open source as the equivalent of piracy – or even worse.
You can read the original article to get the scoop. In a nutshell, legal eagles in the US (home of the sticky tort with spaghetti noodles) wants to make life tough for open source. The addled goose has not figured out the “secret” ACTA treaty and now he is nervous about open source.
I am using Windows to write this post, and I think I will watch this issue. My thought is that life must have been simpler in the 4th century.
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I reference the era cheerfully tagged “Dark Ages,” I will report non payment for my work to the National Archives. Whoops. The US only goes back a couple of centuries. Well, shucks.
Google, Microsoft, Antitrust Excitement
February 25, 2010
Google is finding its Maserati’s Quattroporte braks malfunctioning. Friction is good when you need to stop, not so good if you want to drive as fast as you want. Who stepped on the brakes?
TechCrunch’s write up “EU Opens Antitrust Investigation into Google. Microsoft’s Finderprints Are Everywhere” suggests that Redmond has opened the Quattroporte’s bonnet and fiddled the brakes. The UK’s newspaper Telegraph’s “Google Under Investigation for Alleged Breach of EU Competition Rules” also mentioned Microsoft. The passage was:
The Commission’s action marks the latest round in the increasingly acrimonious battle between Google and Microsoft which senior Google sources accuse of waging a “lobbying campaign” against the Californian firm.
Interesting. The firm’s are now tossing legal snowballs at one another.
One consequence of a Hele-Shaw configuration and boundary condidtions. Translation: cracks, gentle reader, cracks. Source: http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/fluids/cimex3.jpg
My view:
- If you cannot defeat another firm with marketing or technology, why not give the legal eagles a chance? Google, as I pointed out in my The Google Legacy (Infonortics 2005) is vulnerable to legal action. My question, “Why did Microsoft, if the allegation in the comment is accurate, wait until Google’s lead is the digital equivalent of the Grand Canyon?”
- Will the EU be able to reverse the Google seepage into the EU’s member nations? It is one thing to tell a government worker not to use Google, and it is quite another to get people to break a habit. In some countries, Google’s shae of the search market is at 90 percent; for example, Denmark and Germany.
- Can Google’s management handle another distraction? I pointed to a write up that used the word “screwup” to describe Google’s first nine weeks of 2010. I have been tracking the Google since 2002 when a big outfit paid me to figure out if the Google technology was any good. In that eight year span, I believe the PCWorld article’s use of the word “screwup” in a headline referring to Google was a first. If the write up is correct, Google’s zonky management style may be at a boundary condition.
In short, boundary conditions are exciting places, and Google may be entering one. Another attribute of the boundary is that it is unstable. Instablity often creates opportunity. Instatiliby can also lead to a sudden phase change; for instance, a break up.
So, excitement.
Stephen E Arnold, February 25, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I mentioned a math concept (boundary condition), I will report non-payment to NASA. This outfit understands boundary conditions upon shuttle re-entry.
Xerox Legal Eagles Swarm at Google and Yahoo
February 24, 2010
Quite a surprise. I have not given Xerox much thought. True, about 11 years ago we had a job to hook one of the DocuTech scanners to the main DocuTech copy machine. Not too tough, but work is work. Since that time, I don’t pay much attention to Xerox. I know about Xerox Parc’s history of innovation, of course. I do recall learning that the company has rolled out an information system for law firms, but I don’t think of Xerox as a document management or eDiscovery company. Xerox to me is a maker of photocopy machines which makes clear why the headline “Xerox Files Patent Suit against Google, Yahoo” caught my attention. I thought, “What?”
The main idea is that Xerox has US6778979, “System for Automatically Generating Queries”. I think I met Greg Grefenstette at one time. The invention, according to the patent document’s abstract states:
A system generates a query using an entity extractor, a categorizer, a query generator, and a short run aspect vector. The entity extractor identifies a set of entities in selected document content for searching information related thereto using an information retrieval system. The categorizer defines an organized classification of document content with each class in the organization of content having associated therewith a classification label that corresponds to a category of information in the information retrieval system. The categorizer assigns the selected document content a classification label from the organized classification of content. A query generator formulates a query that restricts a search at the information retrieval system to the category of information in the information retrieval system identified by the assigned classification label. The short length aspect vector generator generates terms for further refining the query using context information surrounding the set of entities in the selected document content.
Xerox also asserts that the Google infringed on US6236994, “Method and Apparatus for the Integration of Information and Knowledge.” This invention, according to that patent document’s abstract states:
The present invention is a method and apparatus for first integrating the operation of various independent software applications directed to the management of information within an enterprise. The system architecture is, however, an expandable architecture, with built-in knowledge integration features that facilitate the monitoring of information flow into, out of, and between the integrated information management applications so as to assimilate knowledge information and facilitate the control of such information. Also included are additional tools which, using the knowledge information enable the more efficient use of the knowledge within an enterprise, including the ability to develop a context for and visualization of such knowledge.
The TechWeb article reported:
Xerox is seeking treble damages because it claims the defending companies are aware of its patents and that their infringement is willful.
I know zero about the legal world. I do know big bucks when I read about this type of claim. What’s interesting is that Xerox seems happy to talk about the legal matter. According to the write up:
“We have been in dialog with Google and Yahoo for some time about licensing these patents, without reaching a resolution,” a Xerox spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. “We believe we have no option but to file suit to properly protect our intellectual property.”
The economy may be struggling, but the lawyers involved in this may have a Veyron in the drive way by next spring.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Unlike attorneys, I guess, I work without compensation. I have to report non payment to the USPTO. I hope that group’s online system someday includes more patent documents easily accessible via a search system that does not violate another party’s patent.
More Google Book Push Back
February 18, 2010
My position on Google Books is that when this project is dead, no one will scan books. Sure, there will be fragmented collections like those available from the commercial database publishers and some folks with time on their hands at various national libraries. But the big idea is pretty much dead unless some extra terrestrial action occurs. Where lawyers are concerned, extra terrestrial actions are not unknown. I still can hear “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
You may want to take a look at some interesting push back regarding the Google Book project in the TechCrunch write up “Gary Reback: Why the Technology Sector Should Care about Google Books.” There are quite a few interesting factoids in the write up; for example:
Once upon a time, Google claimed it employed neutral, mathematically-based algorithms to prioritize search in ad listings. But last November Google admitted to the Washington Post that only search results from Google’s content competitors are listed according to neutral algorithms. Search results from Google’s own properties, like maps, news and books, are now listed first, the algorithm notwithstanding. Even more recently Google admitted that it changes the rank ordering of paid search ads to prioritize its own company messages.
Yep, the hybrid approach to content processing where human data and that generated from semi autonomous agents is “discovered” by Google watchers. The method appears in a stack of Google patent documents, but some people just realized how the Google plumbing moves digital water from A to B and what chemical treatments are applied prior to its discharge.
I recommend reading this TechCrunch article for three reasons:
- It appears to suggest that Google is a monopoly although a different type of monopoly
- The write up presents examples of how today’s Google seems to be a bit different from more benign views of Google in the “Larry and Sergey eat pizza” types of analysis.
- A big stick is now beating Googzilla about the ears.
Stephen E Arnold, February 18, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I reference the mistreatment of Googzillas, I suppose I need to report this lack of payment and my culpability for suggesting the use of intellectual force against Googzillas to the director of the National Zoo, where most animals are treated humanely.
