'Embarrassing' Court Document Google Wanted to Hide Finally Posted Online (arstechnica.com) 44
America's Department of Justice "has finally posted what judge Amit Mehta described at the Google search antitrust trial as an 'embarrassing' exhibit that Google tried to hide from the public," reports Ars Technica:
The document in question contains meeting notes that Google's vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, "created for a course on communications," Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google's search advertising "is one of the world's greatest business models ever created" with economics that only certain "illicit businesses" selling "cigarettes or drugs" "could rival."
At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn't recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students "things I don't believe as part of the presentation." He also claimed that the notes were "full of hyperbole and exaggeration" and did not reflect his true beliefs, "because there was no business purpose associated with it." According to Bloomberg, Google repeatedly objected to the document being shared in court, claiming it was irrelevant to the DOJ's case. Then, after Mehta allowed the DOJ to present the document as evidence, Google tried to seal off Roszak's testimony on the document...
Beyond likening Google's search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak's notes also said that because users got hooked on Google's search engine, Google was able to "mostly ignore the demand side" of "fundamental laws of economics" and "only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales." This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ. "We could essentially tear the economics textbook in half," Roszak's notes said. Part of the DOJ's case argues that because Google has a monopoly over search, it's less incentivized to innovate products that protect consumers from harm like invasive data collection.
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak's statements "don't reflect the company's opinion" and "were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing." The spokesman also noted that Roszak "testified he didn't believe the statements to be true."
At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn't recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students "things I don't believe as part of the presentation." He also claimed that the notes were "full of hyperbole and exaggeration" and did not reflect his true beliefs, "because there was no business purpose associated with it." According to Bloomberg, Google repeatedly objected to the document being shared in court, claiming it was irrelevant to the DOJ's case. Then, after Mehta allowed the DOJ to present the document as evidence, Google tried to seal off Roszak's testimony on the document...
Beyond likening Google's search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak's notes also said that because users got hooked on Google's search engine, Google was able to "mostly ignore the demand side" of "fundamental laws of economics" and "only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales." This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ. "We could essentially tear the economics textbook in half," Roszak's notes said. Part of the DOJ's case argues that because Google has a monopoly over search, it's less incentivized to innovate products that protect consumers from harm like invasive data collection.
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak's statements "don't reflect the company's opinion" and "were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing." The spokesman also noted that Roszak "testified he didn't believe the statements to be true."
Don't you believe it. (Score:1, Insightful)
"testified he didn't believe the statements to be true." - He believed every word of it ... because it's true. Google would not have tried so hard to hide this if it wasn't core to their beliefs.
Re:Don't you believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is they'd work just as hard to hide it if, in fact, it would sound true when it wasn't. Their attempts to have it sealed proves nothing either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't you believe it. (Score:5, Interesting)
It proves that they consider it believable.
And that's because it is.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that it's just as likely (if not more) that this is true than not, we should always be careful not to fall into the logical trap of saying, "This supports what I already believed, so that means it's true and I'm right."
Re: (Score:2)
Detach yourself from the idea that it matters whether something is true or not. We're in a post-factual time, where truth and reality are up for discussion and everyone makes their own.
What matters is whether people can believe it's true.
The "truth" of a matter is mostly dependent on how believable and credible something is. Not whether something actually is true.
Re:Don't you believe it. (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds far worse than it actually is. They are saying their product is so good that users get withdrawal symptoms when trying to use competitor's search engines, because the results just aren't as good as Google's. They didn't set out to make it addictive, it doesn't administer nicotine to the user, or use scummy mobile gaming mechanics to keep users hooked. It's just good, and having a world of information and knowledge at your fingertips is very compelling.
The main concern is probably any statement that suggests that they aren't having to fight tooth-and-nail to retain users, i.e. that it looks like they have a monopoly on search and nobody else can break into the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is completely untrue. The "user addiction" is much more likely monopolistic practices (illegal) and a modified form of Stockholm Syndrome.
In any case, if their search is really "addictive", it needs to be outlawed (oops...) or put unter similar restrictions like online gambling (oops...). In particular, no access for kids. And, obviously, they knew all along and did nothing to stop the addictiveness and may have, in fact, amplified it. Certain rulings against the opioid mafia in the medical field may
Re: (Score:2)
So they're not adding nicotine, they ARE nicotine. We don't let kids have access to nicotine. We frequently ban nicotine products in some settings. We require warning labels.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. They attempt at hiding it is an indicator for fundamental dishonesty and lack of honor, i.e. bad corporate culture. (Well, it is a large successful US enterprise, so what do you expect?) And that in turn makes the statements a lot more believable. It also is proof that Google is too stingy or too incompetent to hire good legal and media advisors, which is an indicator that greed has taken over. That, in turn, is also an indicator that the statements made may well be literal truth.
Also refer to "e
Re: (Score:1)
"It also is proof that Google is too stingy or too incompetent to hire good legal and media advisors"
Maybe. Or Google (a company with 175k+ employees) has hired a few bad employees like EVERY other company with more than a handful of employees.
Re: (Score:2)
That then advised them to try to keep this stuff in a high-profile court case secret and that failed? That does not seem very credible. Of course, they may have hired idiots for critical roles and that is something I would immediately believe. Well, we have one actual example right in the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Slight misunderstanding here (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has a monopoly over search, it's less incentivized to innovate products that protect consumers from harm like invasive data collection.
That would be tantamount to asking Google to protect users from itself, given that Google owes its very existence to invasive data collection. It's entire business model depends on it, and the monopoly it has built for itself is key to forcing the surveillance down everybody's throat.
In fairness to Google, I will say this: their monopoly needs to be broken to restore some of the privacy everybody should enjoy, but they didn't steal it or build it on dirty tricks like Microsoft did: they mostly built it because they make excellent products that people like.
In fact, I'm totally convinced making excellent product is part of their strategy to build the monopoly that allows them to exist at all. That's why so many good but slightly meh products Google made got the axe: Google only keeps user-magnets its portfolio.
Of course, now that Google is a deeply entrenched player, they could afford to shove poor(er) products down their victim's throats. But they still mostly crank out good ones. That's commitment to staying on top: Google knows it won't survive without the monopoly.
Which is why I want them Sherman'ed really bad: they're too focused and too relentless to get lazy, slip up and weaken their position.
yeah exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
In the first decade of the 2000s, saying someone was a "google engineer" was almost like saying "MIT grad" as a shorthand for, this guy is super smart. Google routinely published research papers that changed industry paradigms - bigtable, mapreduce, the transformer technology that is the core of all the AI we see today, etc. No the stuff was not 100% novel (like, there was research on the Connection Machine that was basically an early version of MapReduce) but it was done in a way that made the industry sta
Re:Slight misunderstanding here (Score:4, Interesting)
As for having a monopoly: that's fine as long as they do not abuse it.
Re: (Score:3)
Legally you may have an argument. Because we have laws heavily biased in favor of powerful entities.
Practically, monopolies are always dangerous, and need to be either broken up or heavily regulated. The heavily regulated option is dangerous, because they tend to capture the regulators. So broken up is the better choice, but network effects mean that this can severely damage the usefulness of some organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically, monopolies are always dangerous, and need to be either broken up or heavily regulated.
Sweeping generalizations are always wrong, including this one. :-D
Whether something is a monopoly or not depends on how you define the market. For example, a grocery store in a small town in the middle of nowhere might technically qualify as a monopoly within that regional market, but nobody in their right minds would argue that breaking it up or heavily regulating it is a good idea.
And the first company in any new industry is always a monopoly. Similarly, nobody in their right minds would argue that auto
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> That would be tantamount to asking Google to protect users from itself
Even lawyers (who lets be honest, everyone loves to hate) can find ways to compartmentalise their work such that they can avoid one bit of the firm knowing what the other bit is doing. Why can't Google compartmentalise their data to protect users privacy? The reason is of course: they choose not to. They'll be forced to do so if the company gets broken up, or else a competitor could eat some of their lunch and data would be compartme
Re: (Score:3)
I'd buy that they weren't doing anything illegal at the start. Dumping truckloads of advertising cash on other system vendors to make their engine a default and thereby perpetuate their monopoly, that's probably 'in restraint of trade'. I'd hone in on that. This presentation is an emotional appeal.
It's a prank bro (Score:3)
Actually sounds plausible (Score:5, Funny)
If you went far enough back in my educational history you would find a slide in a presentation I gave in a night class where I made some extremely. objectionable things about the average quality of the people working in my field. It was intended as humor but you couldn't tell that from the slide itself. But I wasn't distributing it... I was presenting it. And it got the intended laughs.
Information mined like that shouldn't be considered proof of anything. I'm with him on this one. To me it reads exactly like material not intended to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, he does. Google spin-doctors will be making a real fortune at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for my paycheque. I submitted my post to Google as proof of effort, but I haven't heard back.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you got cheated! They placed you in the "useful idiot" class and those do not get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Right! Anyone that doesn't 100% side against Google must be paid for by Google.
Too effin' bad, Google! (Score:4, Insightful)
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak's statements "don't reflect the company's opinion"
As words written and spoken by an officer of the company, engaged in company business on company time, Roszak's ponderings ARE the company's opinion. The company might change its opinion - or lie about having done so - but that doesn't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Besides, everybody who follows Google even a little knows that this is EXACTLY how they view themselves and their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it may be a bit of hyperbole. Certainly it's in the direction of the way they view their business, though. But you can't say the statements of company agents are the company's opinion, because they lie a lot.
Cory Doctorow calls it "enshittification" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say just that.
You're just like me. Only more eloquent, smarter, and faster.
Re: Cory Doctorow calls it "enshittification" (Score:2)
Cory has a real gift for breaking down abstract concepts into petulant whining.
This looks like a spitballing or a joke doc (Score:1)
Read the notes (Score:2)
The 'embarrassing' part is not what he wrote linking Google to drug dealers.
The 'embarrassing' part is how little business knowledge that degenerate actually has.
The slides wax poetic about emotions and metrics some other team controls, while contributing nothing of value.
As a business owner I would be dumbfounded if this guy applied to work for me and made those suggestions.
Re: Read the notes (Score:2)
he was teaching a class on communications. that's literally what the class is about. what was he supposed to do?
Re: (Score:1)
A communication without substance is called confabulation.
A VP of Finance has no business talking about communication.
This Is Horseshit (Score:3)
Commenting for the first time in over ten years...
*EVERYONE* at Google is required to take courses about how to carefully write things with a mind to legal discovery (ie, *anything* you write needs to done with an assumption that it will be used in the most negative possible way, regardless of actual intent on your part). There's no way this person didn't know that.