corporate self-interest (wasRe: more on I don't like the logic. -- Google turning search data over to Brazil court)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Kemp <john.kemp () mac com>
Date: September 4, 2006 9:52:15 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: corporate self-interest (wasRe: [IP] more on I don't  
like the logic. -- Google turning search data over to Brazil court)

Hello,

David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "RJR RJRiley.com" <RJR () RJRILEY com>
> Date: September 2, 2006 7:47:22 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] more on I don't like the logic. -- Google turning
> search data over to Brazil court
>
>  For IP if you wish.
>
> In our industry we have long recognized that Google is likely to turn
> out to
> be just as bad as Microsoft.

What does it actually mean that Microsoft has been "bad"? Do you mean
that investors in Microsoft did not object when executives (who are also
investors) engaged in practices designed to make all of the investors in
Microsoft more wealthy? I can see how that can be bad for the user of
software products (producing a market where there is limited
competition). But isn't that what government regulation is supposed to
be about - acting against corporate self-interest to ensure a free
market? As far as I can tell, you can only expect corporations to act in
their own interests. I don't think it /has/ to be that way, but I am no
longer so naive as to expect that corporations will on their own decide
to do something in the public good, rather than for the sake of making
money. And if there are forces in the world that act against that, I
don't see that this is a problem.

Knowing some people who work at Google and Microsoft, I can certainly
say that none of those people are "evil" or "bad" in any sense that I
can associate with those words.

So, who exactly /is/ evil? Or, even "bad"?

In my opinion (and it's just my opinion) we are simply missing a true
advocate for the rights of the citizen (as opposed to the rights of the
investor). But perhaps its simply the case that many of us are just more
investor than citizen these days? And perhaps we're all just acting in
our own self-interests in being that way?

>  Virtually any wildly successful company
> becomes very arrogant over time.  What companies say for public  
> consumption
> and what they do behind the scenes are often in conflict.  Greed and
> arrogance bring out the worst in people.

A company is composed of human beings - those who work for the company,
and those who invest in the company. Self-interest plays a part in all
of those relationships. Most people are /not/ "bad". Some people
actually are greedy, but many (most?) just want to live in comfort. Some
people actually are arrogant, but many (most?) just don't understand
other people as well as they think they do.

If Google, or any other company is doing something that is not in the
public interest, then I'd hope that there is some public outcry, and
that eventually, those who advocate on behalf of the public would do
something to redress the balance.

Google's motto was written by people. People don't want to be evil.

- John



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/