There’s an old military pilot adage – believed to have been born during World War II, “When you’re taking flak, you’re right over the target.”
Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline, “Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House,”
and a subhead, “Search giant averages a White House meeting a week during Obama administration.”
One meeting a week – for six years. That’s a lot. What kinds of things would they discuss?
As the federal government was wrapping up its antitrust investigation of Google Inc., company executives had a flurry of meetings with top officials at the White House and Federal Trade Commission, the agency running the probe.
Google co-founder Larry Page met with FTC officials to discuss settlement talks, according to visitor logs and emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt met with Pete Rouse, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, in the White House…
Soon afterward, the FTC closed its investigation after Google agreed to make voluntary changes to its business practices.
That’s quite a coincidence — at least according to Google. Who immediately unleashed their anti-aircraft guns:
Last year Robert Thomson, CEO of News Corp, accused Google of creating a “less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society.” Given the tone of some of your publications, that made quite a few people chuckle.
This week you were at it again. One of your newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, accused Google of wielding undue political influence. Blimey!
Google seems to be in the minority in their self-assessment.
It ain’t just the Journal –there are many in Congress who think there may be something amiss with the administration’s sudden dismissal of the Google case.
And this isn’t the first time Congress has had Google-Obama questions.
Meanwhile, the circular favor squad between Google and the Administration has all along continued unabated.
Bob Beckel said recently, “Google is back in the spotlight again with the news of the government’s access to our personal data. Some people talk about how strong the ties are between the company and the administration, and just how far it may go to help the government get information.”
Beckel, remember, is a Democrat.
He continued, “Executive chairman Eric Schmidt is an Obama supporter who helped him win reelection.”
The segment cut to a video of Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google: “If you have something you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
“But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act.
“It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”
“The authorites” — are the Obama Administration. Who had to campaign to be “the authorities.”
Google denied Wednesday that it gave President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign special access to a new advertising program…
Of course Google does. Except…
(A) staffer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee…emailed a Google sales rep to ask about creating a similar ad campaign for Republicans.
The saleswoman…replied by suggesting that Obama had a special deal.
And soon after President Obama’s successful re-elect – Google walked on the antitrust charges.
During the 2012 campaign, Barack Obama’s reelection team had an under-appreciated asset: Google’s (GOOG) executive chairman, Eric Schmidt.
He helped recruit talent, choose technology, and coach the campaign manager, Jim Messina, on the finer points of leading a large organization.
Well wasn’t that helpful.
She formerly served as deputy general counsel and head of patents and patent strategy at Google before taking on the job of deputy director of the USPTO on an interim basis, a position she took in December 2013. Then, in October 2014, the White House nominated Lee to be the next head of the office.
Hmmm. How does Google view patents and patent strategy?
Does this mean Google’s intellectual property abuse is now administration policy?
(W)hat exactly is a “patent troll?” He or she is someone who owns a patent – which is private property. And is trying to protect their private property from unauthorized use by someone who doesn’t want to pay to use it.
Is someone who owns a house and calls the police to roust squatters a “property troll?” Is someone who reports their car stolen an “automobile troll?”
So once again there is harmonic convergence between Google and the administration.
Where there’s smoke — there’s being fired upon. The Wall Street Journal knows it. And so too do innovators who want their ideas protected — from abusers like Google.
They will receive no quarter from the Google administration.