The Google Tags program gave business owners the change to attach photos, coupons, and other information to their local listings. Rachel Frezza and Mauro Rodriguez, owners of two separate North Carolina businesses, have filed suit after participating in a free one-month trial. It seems they found some unexpected Googley charges on their credit cards. I submit that most of us have experience with “free trials” that resulted in errant charges. I never considered suing over them. Well, not seriously.

Suing Google is a popular move right now, though, and I suppose Frezza and Rodriguez couldn’t resist. The case could turn into a class-action suit. How far will it go?

Besides billing mishaps, the article states,

Both entrepreneurs allege in their complaint that the company refused to delete their billing information. They argue that California law requires merchants to delete financial data upon request when it’s no longer needed. They also allege that Google’s retention of the data places them ‘at a heightened risk of identity theft, fraud and catastrophic financial loss.’

Yeah, them and anyone else who has ever entered account information at a merchant site. If you want to protect your sensitive info, keep it off the Internet. Ever heard of a prepaid debit card? Problem solved.

Cynthia Murrell, February 9, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

I find the thunderclouds forming and heading toward Google both amusing and somewhat disturbing. There are folks who have been doing more exciting and interesting things with user data for many years. Nope, I won’t provide names. I am not a journalist, although some home economics majors at public relations firms find this fact tough to swallow.

Consider this Reuters news story. Keep in mind that Reuters is part of Thomson Reuters, and it has quite a number of online properties and a significant amount of information about its users. The company acquired ClearForest, at the time one of the leaders in filtering information for flakes of gold. Thomson Reuters also licensed or bought the Lexalytics’ system to do some interesting things with the unstructured text flowing through the Reuters and Thomson systems.

Now navigate to “EU Regulators Want Google to Halt New Privacy Policy.” The news story asserts that the regulators see Google as having a moped. Just hit the brake and stop. Actually Google is more like a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Stopping the darned thing takes planning, time, and quite a bit of work. Toss in a turn and one has to figure out how to get the fishing boats out of the way. When the aircraft carrier is chugging along at cruising speed, sudden maneuvers are not part of the captain’s expected routine. What happens if the stopping or maneuvering goes wrong? Well, check out the Costa cruise captain. He’s under house arrest and easy to find.

Here’s the passage in the news story which I noted:

In light of the above, we call for a pause in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis.” The European commissioner in charge of data protection, Viviane Reding, welcomed the move, saying it was a necessary to establish that EU data rules were being firmly applied. “The Commission therefore calls on Europe’s data protection authorities to ensure that EU law is fully complied with in Google’s new privacy policy,” she said in a statement.

I also found the grace note poignant:

Google said the raising of concerns came as a surprise.

Google has several challenges on its hands. Let me capture them before my addled goose brain awash with weird medications fails me:

1. There is the advertising revenue problem; that is, traffic up, spendable dough down. Add to this problem the fact that mobile advertising is not as rich of a golden goose as the 2004 to 2007 online variety, and you have a looming revenue / net profit problem unrelated to Google’s friends in government.
2. There are financially and technically capable competitors: Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft, among others. Unlike the period from 1998 to 2007, Google now has to cope with marketplace push back and active resistance from competitors with different core competencies.
3. There are a broad range of business fronts on which Google is focusing resources. Trimming small scale projects is essentially irrelevant in light of the market sectors in which Google is actively trying to expand market share: mobile, online advertising, enterprise services, and consumer social services. As a result, management’s ability is put to the test and, as the financial results for the last quarter suggest, is stretched.
4. Legal challenges abound and some seem to be open ended and add friction to the smooth operation of the company; for example, books and the dispute with Oracle.

The net net is that Google’s scrutiny at privacy may bog down the company even more than its on going activities. Unlike a dollars and cents issue, unease about privacy may end up one of the more costly challenges Google faces. Opportunity cost may outweigh the legal fees associated with the European storm which is racing forward.

Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

The associations are not proper parties to this copyright infringement case because they themselves do not claim to own any copyright at issue.

In 2005 The Authors Guild and The American Association of Publishers brought a lawsuit against Google in order to block them from scanning books and making the digital content available in libraries and online. They argue Google did not get permission to scan the books and by doing so they are violating copyright laws. ASMP filed their own lawsuit against Google in 2010 and the two lawsuits are being considered together. Interesting enough, Google did not file a dismissal motion against the Association of Publishers and it is believed that a settlement is in the works between the two.

Enough is enough, get on with it already. Hopefully an end is in sight because this fire fizzled ages go.

April Holmes, Janaury 29, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

Utah Rule 26 has changed the permissible scope of discovery to expressly condition that all discovery meet the standards of proportionality.  That means parties may seek discovery of relevant, non-privileged materials “if the discovery satisfies the standards of proportionality.”  This effectively shifts the burden of proof on proportionality from the responding party to the requesting party.  Indeed, Utah Rule 26(b)(3) specifically codifies this stunning change:  ‘The party seeking discovery always has the burden of showing proportionality and relevance.’

Utah Rule 26 could be a potential model for implementing a federal rule and make proportionality the standard governing eDiscovery. The new federal rule based on this blueprint could be amended to expressly condition discovery on meeting the principles of proportionality. This could drastically lower the costs surrounding eDiscovery. On the other hand, when clients pay, advisors bill. Ultimately clients have to manage legal fees, proportionality or not.

Andrea Hayden, January 28, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

The “real” journalist’s research vehicle. This is the Herman Miller Aeron Chaise 2/3. Kick back and get the news via an Internet connection. No need to talk to humans. No reason to ask vapid questions. No need to get a first hand feel of the crowd. Put the anterior in an aeron and produce news. Get static, dude. Image source: http://www.kalkwijk.com

The company takes a different approach to events such as the anachronistic Consumer Electronic Show. CES is held in the new, spiritual and emotional heart of America—Las Vegas. As you may know, this is a city where a destination looks as if one could walk to the status of Liberty in a couple of minutes. The spatial distortion often means a slog of 30 minutes through a crowd of America’s most intelligent and productive citizens.

Navigate to “Microsoft CEO Hits Familiar Chord in CES Swan Song.” Skip the ambiguity of “swan song” and pondering whether its reference is to Mr. Ballmer, Microsoft, or CES itself. Here’s the new “real” journalism method:

The Associated Press watched Ballmer’s speech in Las Vegas on a webcast.

Whether it is an online university or an update on a legal matter via YouTube.com, why go to an event, interview attendees, check out the crowd reaction, and maybe ask a “real” question? Irrelevant to modern news work.

Here in Harrod’s Creek, this 67 year old goose does not go to many trade shows and he never, ever visits Las Vegas. The older, gentler America in rural Illinois and the mine drainage choked pond are what he prefers.

Does he miss “real” life and information by relying on his Aeron and Internet connection? Well, he thought he did. But what’s good enough for the AP, a “real” news outfit is definitely good enough for an old person like me. Life as it is viewed is definitely better than life as it is actually experienced. Here’s another video on YouTube that makes the first hand experience essentially irrelevant. Good to know how news works today. A video is just like life now. Progress? Not for me but that’s a personal opinion.

Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

I thought about my gizmo when I read Samsung vs Google by the respected manager and investor Jean-Louis Gassée. I agree with most of his points, but I have worked with French wizards long enough to know that life is easier if one looks at the French as having outstanding technical capabilities, not just a nice country in which to purchase cheese. So no push back from me about the main point of the write up:

But even if we “de-propagandize” the numbers, Samsung is clearly the number one Android handset maker, and, just as clearly, it’s taking large chunks of market share from the other two leading players: Motorola and HTC both announced lower than expected Q4CY11 numbers. HTC’s unit volume was 10 million units, down from 13.2 million in Q3; Motorola got 10.5 million units in Q4, down from 11.6 million in Q3. This leaves us with the potential for an interesting face-off. Not Samsung vs Motorola/HTC, but…Samsung vs. Google. As Erik Sherman observes in his CBS MoneyWatch post, since Samsung ships close to 55% of all Android phones, the company could be in a position to twist Google’s arm. If last quarter’s trend continues — if Motorola and HTC lose even more ground — Samsung’s bargaining position will become even stronger. But what is Samsung’s ‘‘bargaining position’’? What could they want? Perhaps more search referral money (the $$ flowing when Google’s search engine is used on a smartphone), earlier access to Android releases, a share of advertising revenue… Will Google let Samsung gain the upper hand? Not likely, or at least not for long.There’s Motorola, about to become a fully-owned but “independent” Google subsidiary. A Googorola vertically-integrated smartphone line could counterbalance Samsung’s influence.

What caught my attention is the interesting role of Amazon in the Android avalanche. Amazon has used Android in its apparently successful Kindle Fire. The Amazon approach reminded me of the Chinese dual SIMM mobile phone. Android was like the lift a dude ranch rider gets from the trail ride boss. Android gets the dudes on the horses. Once on the horses, both dudes and animals can behave in unpredictable ways.

What is not in the write up is the possibility that the Amazons, Chinese mobile makers, and Samsung may use that open source Android in idiosyncratic ways. Even a dude ranch guest can make a horse behave, and in some cases turn the “head to the barn” mindset into a wild gallop. Can Google manage one or more run away horses? Will the clueless dude ranch rider develop some new affinity with the horse and make it do new tricks? Will the horse come back to the barn?

Google’s risk lies beyond Amazon and Samsung. Android in the hands of the clever engineers who developed my two SIMM phone may not behave as desired. Once out of the barn, life can be even more interesting. Is Google prepared for that type of “interesting”? I think that Google has to demonstrate that the freedom which created the Android herd can keep the nags under control. Does Jeff Bezos don a saddle and bridle each morning? Does the maker of my mobile with two SIMMs respond to Google’s trail boss and his whistle? Will Samsung trot back to the barn in a docile, predictable way? I think not.

Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

The senators added that a key question for the FTC is whether Google favors its own online properties when serving search results, and suggested that Google’s own executives had admitted as much during the subcommittee hearings. Kohl and Lee have also asked the FTC to consider what Google could do with Android, warning that the firm could force hardware manufacturers that use the operating system to set its search engine as the default.

Strong points; we’ll see how far it goes.

Google must be used to this sort of finger pointing.  I suppose they’ve decided all the negative attention, and litigation, are worth it in their pursuit of Web domination.

Cynthia Murrell, January 6, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

First, I noted “buySAFE Sues Google Over Trusted Stores Service, Fears Annihilation.” The main idea of the story is that Google is nosing into a market space where buySAFE has a tent. Here’s the passage I noted, but, alas, I don’t know if the information is spot on. I want to point it out because it suggests a certain spirit, perception, and mindset I find interesting:

[buySAFE]  claims that Google may have timed the roll-out of its free Trusted Stores program “so as to impede buySAFE’s effort to raise additional capital”, which it says it requires to expand its business. According to buySAFE, “Google’s acts and practices have a dangerous probability of driving (the company) from the market”. In fact, buySAFE says Google’s actions have “already succeeded in drastically slowing buySAFE’s annual growth rate”. And to think almost no one knows Google Trusted Stores even exists today.

Next, I saw this item about Amazon, an outfit which is losing its “we’re just booksellers” positioning with its spiraling services and products line up. Navigate to “Kindle Case Maker Calls Amazon.com a Corporate Bully in Federal Lawsuit.”

Is Attila’s management method getting more traction than other approaches?

I can’t get excited about Kindle cases because the gizmos lack durability. I have had six, maybe seven, and I have resigned myself to replacing them due to stuck buttons, cracked screens, broken mini USB plugs, and other issues caused because the addled goose still reads books. Here’s the passage I noted with the caveat that I have no idea if the story is accurate. Just read it for positioning:

“This case presents a classic example of unlawful corporate bullying,” according to the suit. “M-Edge developed a very successful product line: personal electronic device jackets with multiple features for the Kindle and other e-readers. Amazon thereafter repeatedly sought to hijack the product through threats, deceit, interference with M-Edge’s customer relationships, and patent infringement.”

On the surface, we have some enthusiastic business managers working to earn their bonus. However, when one thinks about the similarity in services and the companies’ interesting relationship to one another, I had several thoughts.

First, maybe despite the substantial

positive financial information reported by both firms, the management of these companies sees a benefit in circling the wagons to protect market share and revenues. In short, could 2012 looks less rosy than the talking heads on US cable news suggest?

Second, the similarity in business tactics suggests that companies which are now coalescing into de facto monopolies are doing what the trust busters in America’s distant and far off past tried to stop? If this centralization of utility services continues, will a technical fault trigger significant cascades of technical and financial events?

Third, are both firms’ search systems losing their efficacy? I have stubbed my toe with A9 and Google as recently as yesterday. I find myself running into precision and recall problems with increasing frequency. Are my disappointing search results indicative of a marginalization of this core service?

Third, the public visage of the two companies is quite different from what the profiles were three or four years ago. The kinder, more gentle approach seems to be waning. Could it be my imagination or has a more forceful approach gained the upper hand?

Worth monitoring Amazon and Google I assert.

Stephen E Arnold, December 28, 2011

Sponsored by Pandia.com

This is essentially where the authors were in 2005 when Google first partnered with dozens of libraries to create a digital collection that today numbers at least 14 million titles. The collection is now languishing unread after Judge [Denny] Chin rejected the Google Book Settlement, an ambitious three-way partnership that would have allowed Google to sell out-of-print books and share the proceeds with publishers and authors.

Many are anxious to know whether Google’s scanning will be judged a “fair use” that doesn’t violate copyright. Google is expected to move to have the case thrown out, but even if it proceeds, it will be a while before that question is answered; the case will be caught up in procedural matters for some time.

It’s too bad the Library of Congress did not tackle this project, since the Google approach seems to be going nowhere fast. The collective enlightenment of humanity will have to wait.

Cynthia Murrell, December 25, 2011

Sponsored by Pandia.com

It seems that American Income Life Insurance, based in Indiana, doesn’t like having critical posts from sites like scam.com appear in the results when one searches for its name. Of course they don’t like it! But that isn’t Google’s fault. Perhaps the insurance company should spend its efforts on improving relations with its employees, rather than suing the messenger. Just a thought.

American Income is taking its case to Alabama courts, though it did offer a way for Google to get out of its crosshairs: just move the offending links to the second page of results, and they’ll forget the whole thing. Google declined to play ball; it knows the suit won’t get anywhere. Writer Wendy Davis notes:

Law professor Eric Goldman, who broke news of the lawsuit on Twitter, predicts that Google will prevail — despite the insurance company’s characterization of the dispute as a trade practices issue and not a defamation case. Either way, he says, Google should be protected by the Communications Decency Act, which generally says that Web companies are immune for posting material created by third parties.

American Income Life Insurance would be better served by doing some work for itself on its Internet presence.  Objectivity, precision, recall– each matters. The insurance company wants positive traffic, but has not figured out that Adwords work. Work with Google, not against it; the odds are much better that way.

Cynthia Murrell, December 25, 2011

Sponsored by Pandia.com