Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: June 12, 2007 10:29:08 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman

Google needs more criticism.   Both constructive and hostile.   It's  
odd that anyone thinks otherwise.

But I find this discussion odd.   When a newspaper or government  
creates a position of Ombudsman, the typical reason is that they find  
themselves the target of withering criticism, in a bad place, and  
want to earn back some trust.  An Ombudsman, after all, starts out in  
a very tough, corrupted position.   Their salary is paid for by the  
folks they are asked to criticize.  Without a very strong external  
source of hostility, an Ombudsman *cannot* be effective.  I think if  
you talk to any practicing Ombudsman, you will find that they agree.   
(I'd be interested if they didn't, too.)

It would do Google a great deal of good to be under the threat of  
serious anti-trust action.  They are (IMO) a monopoly in their  
market, and if that became settled law, there are a whole set of  
rules they must follow as a result.  Surely their corporate counsel  
understand this, and while they will publicly fight such a decision  
because it does hamper their potential returns to stockholders, the  
anti-trust laws are the law of the land for a reason.

That some of the IP correspondents are fearful that they will be  
harmed by Google if they say such things is troubling.   It reflects  
the fear that US society is operating under today - a "lawless  
Department of Justice" may not be a correct description of the state  
of things, but the actions of the DoJ and many practicing lawyers are  
troubling.   The goal of many actions seems to be to attack popular  
dissent against actions of corporations and the government by using  
the law as a weapon to harm dissenters, rather than using law as a  
tool of justice.

Perhaps I'm foolish too.   I have friends who work at Google, just as  
I have friends who work at Microsoft.  Just because they are friends  
I don't think they should be "above the law", and just because they  
have created great wealth for us all and also for their investors, I  
don't think that gives them a free pass to do whatever they damn  
please in the future.

So I think Lauren is wimping out in calling for an Ombudsman.   Let  
Google decide that it needs one, as a result of proper public  
criticism of its actions.  Perhaps rather than appointing an  
Ombudsman, they will actually "do the right thing" which would be far  
better than merely creating a whitewashing process.







-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com