Interesting People mailing list archives
corporate self-interest (wasRe: more on I don't like the logic. -- Google turning search data over to Brazil court)
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:05:10 -0400
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 comSubject: 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 companybecomes very arrogant over time. What companies say for public consumptionand 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/
Current thread:
- corporate self-interest (wasRe: more on I don't like the logic. -- Google turning search data over to Brazil court) David Farber (Sep 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- corporate self-interest (wasRe: more on I don't like the logic. -- Google turning search data over to Brazil court) David Farber (Sep 06)