Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   You're not going to believe this, but a company that loves to claim laws don't apply to it is also one of the biggest spenders for Washington lobbyists   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 34
    More: Obvious, Lobbying in the United States, Google, Marc Rotenberg, Heritage Action for America, Federalist Society, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Susan Molinari, political sciences  
•       •       •

4888 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Apr 2014 at 4:33 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-12 11:14:43 PM  
Ass still bleeding from your little centerfold over at mozilla getting shiatcanned crymitter?
 
2014-04-12 11:43:21 PM  
When did Google say laws don't apply to it?  Care to get the rest of the class up to speed subby?
 
2014-04-13 12:37:55 AM  
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

shocking news that a company grew and then started lobbying congress
FFS

how else do you keep the government from FARKING with you ??
 
2014-04-13 05:24:03 AM  
Well what else are they gonna spend the money on?  Creating jobs? HAHAHAHAHa
 
2014-04-13 05:29:24 AM  
 
2014-04-13 06:12:33 AM  
Welcome to the desert of the real....

Up and comers want less barrier to entry and a sense of fairness.  Established companies what to utilize their resources to ensure they remain established, and funding politicians is a great way to do that.

It's no different than people who complain about incompetent co-workers and managers who get their jobs because they were related/friends with the boss's boss - who go off and start their own company, grow it to a moderate size, and then decide to hire their nephew.  Happens all the time.  It's human nature.
 
2014-04-13 08:36:22 AM  
Google: The Walmart of the internet.

/runs away
 
2014-04-13 08:41:18 AM  
Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.
 
2014-04-13 08:42:04 AM  

namatad: how else do you keep the government from FARKING with you ??


Adopt a wide stance in an airport bathroom.
 
2014-04-13 08:49:24 AM  

fluffy2097: Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.


Let's be fair:  Every company wants to do that and any that can will.  I imagine google's own decision to start acting in that manner is right around the time they decided to drop that silly 'do no evil' motto.  Now they're more like Apple then some uppity start up with big eyes and lots of venture capital to burn.
 
2014-04-13 09:02:10 AM  

shlabotnik: Google: The Walmart of the internet.

/runs away


That's not really controversial. Not sure anyone in their right mind would disagree.
 
2014-04-13 09:21:38 AM  
In the rest of the world this is called grift or corruption. In the united states it's called lobbying! Just another great idea by the US to take an idea everybody is familiar with, corrupt it, and rename it.
 
2014-04-13 10:06:08 AM  
Breaking News: Big companies that make money like being big and profitable!
 
2014-04-13 11:07:39 AM  
"One of the things we've recognized is that no company can get anything done in Washington without partnerships on both sides of the aisle," he said.

Thank goodness both parties are for sale to the same obscenely wealthy few!
 
2014-04-13 12:01:34 PM  
Congratulations, Google.  Now you're the same as everyone else.
 
2014-04-13 12:02:47 PM  

digistil: shlabotnik: Google: The Walmart of the internet.

/runs away

That's not really controversial. Not sure anyone in their right mind would disagree.


I'm not sure I get the comparison. Is it just that we should consider both "evil", or is there some deeper similarity?
 
2014-04-13 12:09:42 PM  

fluffy2097: Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.


Isn't that every company?
 
2014-04-13 12:16:42 PM  

AgentPothead: In the rest of the world this is called grift or corruption. In the united states it's called lobbying! Just another great idea by the US to take an idea everybody is familiar with, corrupt it, and rename it.


No, paying someone to talk to the government on your behalf is not corrupt. Giving money to politicians in exchange for a consideration is corrupt.

Paying a lobbyist to talk to politicians is an exercise of the right to petition the govt and is protected by the constitution.
 
2014-04-13 01:11:59 PM  
If you can't beat 'em is worth two in the bush.
 
2014-04-13 01:14:34 PM  

Animatronik: AgentPothead: In the rest of the world this is called grift or corruption. In the united states it's called lobbying! Just another great idea by the US to take an idea everybody is familiar with, corrupt it, and rename it.

No, paying someone to talk to the government on your behalf is not corrupt. Giving money to politicians in exchange for a consideration is corrupt.

Paying a lobbyist to talk to politicians is an exercise of the right to petition the govt and is protected by the constitution.


You cannot petition the gov't with prayer!

/got nuthin'
 
2014-04-13 01:44:52 PM  

qorkfiend: digistil: shlabotnik: Google: The Walmart of the internet.

/runs away

That's not really controversial. Not sure anyone in their right mind would disagree.

I'm not sure I get the comparison. Is it just that we should consider both "evil", or is there some deeper similarity?


For starters, both use a monopoly to run departments well into the red for the sole purpose of driving out the competition in an effort to strengthen their own monopoly. Both have a very strong corporate culture, where the expectation is to blend in and follow Sergey's and Larry's printed "philosophy", which starts with only marketing can talk to the public. Both filter things from the public which are considered to be critical of the corporation. Wal-Mart through a refusal to sell a product and Google through a refusal to offer services such as adsense. This wouldn't be such an issue except that both effectively use their monopoly to make sure it is an issue. Both tend to make rather disgusting public statements which highlight their character. Wal-Mart with gems like proudly proclaiming "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment." Or Google "Evil is whatever we say it is."
 
2014-04-13 03:41:24 PM  
I never want to hear the GOP talk about a "free market" again.
 
2014-04-13 05:18:03 PM  

shlabotnik: Google: The Walmart of the internet.

/runs away


-9001/10
 
2014-04-13 05:22:51 PM  

digistil: their lack ofcharacter.


ftfy

Otherwise good analysis.

Google is also like Walmart in that it offers such a wide variety of products, it's not very good at any of them. It's just that it's more convenient to have one log-in to access a shiatton of services instead of picking a choosing different sites for various needs.
 
2014-04-13 05:49:20 PM  
Remember wheb Google was a halfway-decent search engine? Those were the days.
 
2014-04-13 07:02:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.

Isn't that every company?


And what does that say about corporate morality?
 
2014-04-13 07:12:04 PM  

Animatronik: AgentPothead: In the rest of the world this is called grift or corruption. In the united states it's called lobbying! Just another great idea by the US to take an idea everybody is familiar with, corrupt it, and rename it.

No, paying someone to talk to the government on your behalf is not corrupt. Giving money to politicians in exchange for a consideration is corrupt.

Paying a lobbyist to talk to politicians is an exercise of the right to petition the govt and is protected by the constitution.


Except that de facto creates more rights and more access for wealthy corporations than regular citizens, who can't afford to pay a lobbyist or fly to Washington. And if you refuse to see a the right lobbyist? You lose your campaign financing, you can't put out any TV or mailing ads, and you're going to lose your election, and everyone knows it. To say nothing of the practice of putting through a single piece of targeted legislation, "retiring," and then going to work for the company/industry you just gave a sweetheart deal to.
 
2014-04-13 07:43:50 PM  

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.

Isn't that every company?

And what does that say about corporate morality?


I don't know about corporate, but it seems pretty reflective of the vast majority of American individuals. Makes sense that the corporate mentality would reflect individual mentality.
 
2014-04-13 10:56:19 PM  

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Also a company that thinks taxes is a game of twisting the law to avoid paying, rather than a civic duty.

Isn't that every company?

And what does that say about corporate morality?


That it doesn't exist?

Yeah, no shiat, Sherlock.
 
2014-04-14 12:40:11 AM  

Ambivalence: When did Google say laws don't apply to it?  Care to get the rest of the class up to speed subby?


Trademark law says nobody else can make money off of your trademark. Let's say you have a website with a trademarked name. Google allows anyone to bid on any search term and get paid by an advertiser for clickthroughs. I bid, say, $10 per click to get people to click on my website instead of yours. Others do as well. So you bid $10.05 so that your website is the one that comes up first on a Google search.

Boom, Google is making money off of your trademarked name, something that federal law prohibits.

I've seen the letters sent by their lawyers regarding trademark violation. "Yeah it is illegal, we don't care and you can't stop us." I forget which one but a few years ago they ran one of the major airlines to neat bankruptcy trying to pursue this in court. Google's lawyers simply waited it out until the company had to withdraw the lawsuit for lack of money.

I worked for a small but very successful niche online retailer, one that has been in business since 1999. If Google was forced to follow federal law by barring anyone but a trademark owner from bidding on the trademark in search it would tremendously reduce expenses.

You can also file lawsuits against those bidding on the name but it is Google who profits from it.

Bing was real good about removing or restricting trademarks properly. Google acknowledged the fact of infringement and said "you can't stop us." In writing.

That is how little they care for laws.
 
2014-04-14 12:50:30 AM  

BolloxReader: Ambivalence: When did Google say laws don't apply to it?  Care to get the rest of the class up to speed subby?

Trademark law says nobody else can make money off of your trademark. Let's say you have a website with a trademarked name. Google allows anyone to bid on any search term and get paid by an advertiser for clickthroughs. I bid, say, $10 per click to get people to click on my website instead of yours. Others do as well. So you bid $10.05 so that your website is the one that comes up first on a Google search.

Boom, Google is making money off of your trademarked name, something that federal law prohibits.

I've seen the letters sent by their lawyers regarding trademark violation. "Yeah it is illegal, we don't care and you can't stop us." I forget which one but a few years ago they ran one of the major airlines to neat bankruptcy trying to pursue this in court. Google's lawyers simply waited it out until the company had to withdraw the lawsuit for lack of money.

I worked for a small but very successful niche online retailer, one that has been in business since 1999. If Google was forced to follow federal law by barring anyone but a trademark owner from bidding on the trademark in search it would tremendously reduce expenses.

You can also file lawsuits against those bidding on the name but it is Google who profits from it.

Bing was real good about removing or restricting trademarks properly. Google acknowledged the fact of infringement and said "you can't stop us." In writing.

That is how little they care for laws.


And the real kicker is that it amounts to what Microsoft was accused of with bundling software with the OS. Google taught everyone to search so well that if you don't bid on your own URL half the people you do business with will never find you again. They will type your URL into Google and try the first page results. If you don't buy your way onto that front page your competitors certainly have using your own URL. So you might as well not even exist. It has emerged as a protections racket for the internet age. No matter how well you otherwise market yourself, Google will take its clickhrough revenue from you or people will not find you because the address bar will not be used by the customer. You are paying Google to not redirect your customers to other sites.
 
2014-04-14 06:05:38 AM  

Animatronik: AgentPothead: In the rest of the world this is called grift or corruption. In the united states it's called lobbying! Just another great idea by the US to take an idea everybody is familiar with, corrupt it, and rename it.

No, paying someone to talk to the government on your behalf is not corrupt. Giving money to politicians in exchange for a consideration is corrupt.

Paying a lobbyist to talk to politicians is an exercise of the right to petition the govt and is protected by the constitution.


A huge swathe of the behaviour considered normal in Washington would result in extensive prison sentences in many democratic countries, where it would be considered corrupt. This i because is is corrupt. Direct money donations (to 'campaign funds' and the like, which has often been no more than a euphemism) buy individual votes on specific issues..

The current leader of your house once gave out actual checks from a corporate tobacco donor on the floor of the house right before a crucial vote. Which the Tobacco companies then won. Think about that.
 
2014-04-14 08:43:41 AM  

BolloxReader: BolloxReader: Ambivalence: When did Google say laws don't apply to it?  Care to get the rest of the class up to speed subby?

Trademark law says nobody else can make money off of your trademark. Let's say you have a website with a trademarked name. Google allows anyone to bid on any search term and get paid by an advertiser for clickthroughs. I bid, say, $10 per click to get people to click on my website instead of yours. Others do as well. So you bid $10.05 so that your website is the one that comes up first on a Google search.

Boom, Google is making money off of your trademarked name, something that federal law prohibits.

I've seen the letters sent by their lawyers regarding trademark violation. "Yeah it is illegal, we don't care and you can't stop us." I forget which one but a few years ago they ran one of the major airlines to neat bankruptcy trying to pursue this in court. Google's lawyers simply waited it out until the company had to withdraw the lawsuit for lack of money.

I worked for a small but very successful niche online retailer, one that has been in business since 1999. If Google was forced to follow federal law by barring anyone but a trademark owner from bidding on the trademark in search it would tremendously reduce expenses.

You can also file lawsuits against those bidding on the name but it is Google who profits from it.

Bing was real good about removing or restricting trademarks properly. Google acknowledged the fact of infringement and said "you can't stop us." In writing.

That is how little they care for laws.

And the real kicker is that it amounts to what Microsoft was accused of with bundling software with the OS. Google taught everyone to search so well that if you don't bid on your own URL half the people you do business with will never find you again. They will type your URL into Google and try the first page results. If you don't buy your way onto that front page your competitors certainly have using your own URL. So you might as well not even exist. It has emerged as a protections racket for the internet age. No matter how well you otherwise market yourself, Google will take its clickhrough revenue from you or people will not find you because the address bar will not be used by the customer. You are paying Google to not redirect your customers to other sites.


You know, if you have actual proof that Google is taking pay for search rank, and not just selling a handful of clearly marked "sponsored links" that appear in a sidebar or at the top of the page, your ranting might have a point. Otherwise, no, Google is under no obligation to give you free advertising, legal or otherwise, trademark or no.
 
2014-04-14 08:50:23 AM  

HeartBurnKid: BolloxReader: BolloxReader: Ambivalence: When did Google say laws don't apply to it?  Care to get the rest of the class up to speed subby?

Trademark law says nobody else can make money off of your trademark. Let's say you have a website with a trademarked name. Google allows anyone to bid on any search term and get paid by an advertiser for clickthroughs. I bid, say, $10 per click to get people to click on my website instead of yours. Others do as well. So you bid $10.05 so that your website is the one that comes up first on a Google search.

Boom, Google is making money off of your trademarked name, something that federal law prohibits.

I've seen the letters sent by their lawyers regarding trademark violation. "Yeah it is illegal, we don't care and you can't stop us." I forget which one but a few years ago they ran one of the major airlines to neat bankruptcy trying to pursue this in court. Google's lawyers simply waited it out until the company had to withdraw the lawsuit for lack of money.

I worked for a small but very successful niche online retailer, one that has been in business since 1999. If Google was forced to follow federal law by barring anyone but a trademark owner from bidding on the trademark in search it would tremendously reduce expenses.

You can also file lawsuits against those bidding on the name but it is Google who profits from it.

Bing was real good about removing or restricting trademarks properly. Google acknowledged the fact of infringement and said "you can't stop us." In writing.

That is how little they care for laws.

And the real kicker is that it amounts to what Microsoft was accused of with bundling software with the OS. Google taught everyone to search so well that if you don't bid on your own URL half the people you do business with will never find you again. They will type your URL into Google and try the first page results. If you don't buy your way onto that front page your competitors certainly have using your own URL. So you might as well not even exist. It has emerged as a protections racket for the internet age. No matter how well you otherwise market yourself, Google will take its clickhrough revenue from you or people will not find you because the address bar will not be used by the customer. You are paying Google to not redirect your customers to other sites.

You know, if you have actual proof that Google is taking pay for search rank, and not just selling a handful of clearly marked "sponsored links" that appear in a sidebar or at the top of the page, your ranting might have a point. Otherwise, no, Google is under no obligation to give you free advertising, legal or otherwise, trademark or no.


Oh, and to add to this, if these letters actually exist, why hasn't anybody tried to stop them? You have admitted guilt against a large class by some of the deepest pockets in the world; every lawyer on the planet would be champing at the bit to bring that class-action.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report