Seriously, how did this make news? It's like saying O b a m a turns out to be an real alien (GMO). What, sour cream is white? no way!!

It makes news BECAUSE there are a lot of Google fans who, in spite of incontrovertible evidence, believe that Evil Google is not evil. As a book publisher myself I had to know from the beginning that Google was going to find some way of making money, passively, without doling anything worthwhile to the authors. Then they had the gall to ask the authors, in effect, to sue them individually--which they knew wouldn't happen.

Librarians, contrary to popular opinion, half the time do not know what they are doing, and have even less experience in business. And besides "everyone uses Google so we are jsut paying them back."

Google and Samsung belong in the same box. Greed at any price. Well let's hope it costs Google $10 billion even though the judges won't let it go that far because many of them, too, know nothing about business.

Google's executives and lawyers probably saw their scanning move has having either a upside or a downside, depending on whether they could get their dubious fair use and even more dubious class action arguments accepted.

• The upside was essentially owning the online display of millions of still-in-copyright books on the thin argument that the books were out of print. That meant lots of eyeballs and hence money for Google and Google alone, since no one else could do the same thing.
  
• 
  
• The downside, they thought, would be a minor slap on the wrist. Small amounts of money paid out to the very few authors who could afford to take them to court, hence their recent efforts to keep authors from joining their lawsuits into one huge Authors Guild lawsuit.
  

Originally Posted by Bobfozz

It makes news BECAUSE there are a lot of Google fans who, in spite of incontrovertible evidence, believe that Evil Google is not evil. As a book publisher myself I had to know from the beginning that Google was going to find some way of making money, passively, without doling anything worthwhile to the authors.

Of course it isn't a surprise their point was to make money. Why is any company in business? Apple's point is to make money, too.

And define "worthwhile to the authors"? Does making it easier to find a book, which in turn leads someone to buying it, not generate sales you wouldn't otherwise have?

Oh, and there are just as many people who see Google as "Evil Google" for no reason just because they don't like them (just like there are people who will say everything Apple does is of the purest intentions, even if its obvious it isn't). Every company has its fans and detractors. Why should Google be any different (as, apparently, you should know, since you're in the detractor side of Google and Samsung, and obviously a fan of Apple, since I'm sure your hatred of the others is based on their supposed lack of deference to Apple).

Originally Posted by testudo


Of course it isn't a surprise their point was to make money. Why is any company in business? Apple's point is to make money, too.

This is why you are so fundamentally misguided about Apple in a nutshell.

Yes, they need to make money to continue to function, just as you need to keep breathing to continue to function.

But is your PURPOSE IN LIFE simply to keep breathing for as long as possible? Or do you have some other purpose that may or may not directly contribute to your longevity or survival?

(judging from your worthlessness here, I feel this is a good topic for debate, but anyway ...)

What you don't seem to get it that it is possible -- not just for Apple, either -- for the company to exist for some OTHER purpose beyond "making money." Not a huge number of companies exist for much other than making money, but some do. Whatever Google started off doing, and however noble that original purpose was, it's gone now -- the company is just an ad agency and the name of the game is money above all else. IMO.

Apple, on the other hand, seems to me to be genuinely interested in creating great products and (judging from remarks by several of the executive team) appear to believe that if the products are really good, the money will naturally follow. This isn't always true, Apple doesn't always hit the right note, but BROADLY speaking this maxim appears to hold water (and it's worth noting that it's hard to succeed without failing occasionally). So I think it's fair to say that the company itself believes this to be true based on their own experiences. It can't just be coincidence that Apple started having trouble when they were making their least distinguishable, most generic and by their standards worst products (the mid-90s) and that they got to where they they are today on the back of some really outstanding, game-changing products.

You appear to be terribly naive about business if you think that the reason any company is in business is purely to make money. Ask any small business owner if they agree with you and I think you'll get an earful on that topic. Apple may be a huge corporation, but I don't think they've lost sight of their more pleasurable "higher purpose" any more than I think the Kino Video, for example, has lost sight of the fact that it's about getting great movies in front of the public (just a quick example of a company I think creates more for love than profit).

Funny... the first time I heard of googles motto "don't be evil" years ago I knew, they're gonna be evil sonner or later. Turned out to be sooner...

Originally Posted by smacker

Funny... the first time I heard of googles motto "don't be evil" years ago I knew, they're gonna be evil sonner or later. Turned out to be sooner...

All companies that say what they are about end up being the exact opposite. Got this one right... Any other company want to make a statement so I can make an assessment? I'm right here......