<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>>Secondly, I will move
away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can
decide if it works for me or not.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>>Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you
what
you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or >even CS asa
whole)
can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can
we? While we are at it, >why don't we insist that coca-cola publish
their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret
recipe >is?<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
<br>
Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of
organizing the world's information, as akin to buying coke or KFC
chicken is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you
have, in the past, declared your innocence regarding this
socio-political term, I may say that this is more or less what
neoliberalism means.<br>
<br>
You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are
obliged to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects
their competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided
that drugs are not the same as KFC chicken. Media companies are obliged
to clearly demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again
some policy makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind.
And you spoke about patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be
publicly available information. In fact patents were initially devised
so that innovative ideas could be widely shared. <br>
<br>
But coming back to the main point about Raff's article.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>>And
it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has
something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. <br>
</font>
<div> <br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html">http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html</a>
<br>
<br>
The link you forward does not address the principle point made by
Raff's article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"Another way that Google exploits its
control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in
2007 of what it calls “universal search,” Google began promoting its
own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the
algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors
its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map
results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical
queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s
stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the
beginning."</p>
<p>"Because of its domination of the global search market
and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at
the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable
competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond
the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so,
incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is
imperiled."</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is)
promoting its
own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the
algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do not know
whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, by my
reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours of
such an allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets assume
that they do so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>>Also there is
definitely a connection between NN practices and
allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities.</font>
<div> </div>
<div>>What connection is that?</div>
<br>
</div>
Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN
violation consists in telco's promoting their own services on their
network over that of their competitors. Google is doing the same at
another level of the network that it controls. Isnt it the same level
of offense? <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0912290943u4827d09atd7078dc17f81b82b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">McTim<br>
<br>
So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to
ensure network neutrality,</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of
"action", then yes.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">and that efforts to confuse this
issue should be resisted. </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>yes</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Efforts at confusion like the
arguments " </font>that Internet content edge-caching (like that used
by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow
violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion.<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">" (quoting the article you
forwarded.)<br>
<br>
That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you
speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the
precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN
discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare
agreement.<br>
<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I
am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different
definition of NN.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is
discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the
implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of
anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be
criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the
opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of
roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and
allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. <br>
<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What connection is that?</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Rest of the article has to be
dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN
debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has
a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an
ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to
say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html">http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html</a>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google
which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often
earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines.
A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have
the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont
expand on this but I think everyone can understand this. </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search
engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Secondly, I will move away only
if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it
works for me or not.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you
what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa
whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented
IP, can we? While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola
publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their
secret recipe is?</div>
<div>\</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">So can we at least ask it to
publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make
a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>yes</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">So what really is Lauren's blog
trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you
are agreeing with is not clear to me.<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree with the below paragraph.</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font>"Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products,
that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same
thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the
Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all
sites!" (From Luaran's blog)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Happy New Year,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>McTim</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>