Google 2007: More Googlers blogging?

Google 2007: More Googlers blogging?

Summary: Will 2007 bring more Googler bloggers to the Google blogging fore?

TOPICS: Google

If Techmeme is the blogosphere’s barometer, December reflected an uptake in high-profile Googlers putting forth the Google case, at their own personal blogs.

Bloggers in point:

1) Shuman Ghosemajumder, Google’s point man on click fraud, weighed in personally on the Google click fraud issue at his own blog December 12 in a post entitled “Google, Click Fraud and Invalid Clicks”:

Matt Cutts pointed to the Ghosemajumder post at his own personal blog, saying:

Read Shuman’s post for more details. I’m sure he had to take the precaution to run his post by the legal team, but personally, I’m delighted to see Shuman talking about this issue on his blog.

Ghosemajumder’s personal blog commentary, then, can be viewed as a proxy for a Google official statement on Google’s position vs. a vs click fraud. Ghosemajumder:

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misinformation on this topic (mainly from third parties with an incentive to exaggerate the issue), so we have been exploring ways to become more transparent ourselves. Our top priority is to protect advertisers, so that means not disclosing any proprietary methods which would allow click fraud perpetrators to reverse-engineer our systems.

A commenter at Ghosemajumder’s blog, Geoffrey Faivre-Malloy, noted, however:

So what is our overall "click fraud rate"? You never answered the question you yourself posed. I think it's great that Google is willing to start disclosing (in public) a bit more information on click fraud. I certainly do understand the need for protecting some of the algorithms however I'm sure that Google also realizes that doing so tends to create a certain amount of distrust from it's users. G-Man


you're right, I did not provide a specific click fraud rate. We don't have such a metric to disclose, because there's no exact way to determine "intent"…

2) Today, William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel, Google, specializing in “fair use,” commented on the CNET story: “Judge: Can't link to Webcast if copyright owner objects” (see “U.S. capitalism vs. Web democracy), at his own personal blog.

Patry presumably did not need to “take the precaution to run his post by the legal team,” as he is a key member of the Google legal team. His personal blog commentary, then, can be viewed as a proxy for a Google official statement on Google’s position vs. a vs, “fair use”, in a post entitled “Gentlemen Stop Your Linking.”

Patry’s post began by cautioning that cases where a defendant acts as his own lawyer are “quite dangerous…to the rest of us.”

It is not clear who “the rest of us” that Patry suggests is at risk. Patry is clear, however, in his condescension to all professional parties involved in the matter:

Cases involving pro se defendants are usually quite dangerous, not only to the defendant, but also to the rest of us: plaintiffs who are represented by decent enough law firms, if before a district judge without copyright experience can, and often do, get away with outrageous things. This may have been the case in Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc. v. Davis, 2006 WL 361983 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2006).

Patry, “fair use” advocate for Google, characterizes the court’s finding that if the defendant is not enjoined from providing unauthorized Webcast links on his Web site, plaintiff will lose its ability to sell sponsorships or advertisement, as a “deeply disturbing opinion.”

Will 2007 bring more Googler bloggers to the Google blogging fore?

ALSO: Google and click fraud: As wholesome as milk? and
Google’s $2 million Stanford ‘fair use’ underwriting

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Googlers Blogging

    I am pleased, I guess, to have my blog noted, but not pleased to read that my views should be taken as a proxy for Google's views. My blog long predates my employment by Google, and most importantly, no one at Google has ever asked to see any of my writings or blog entries beforehand or has ever commented on them afterwards. Moreover, the proxy view assumes there is always one view within Google. Google is blessed to have a large number of very smart and talented men and women; within the company there are, no doubt, different views on issues even as we genuinely strive to do the best together as a community, toward shared views and objectives.

    The stated purpose of my blog has, from its inception, been to provide a place for those interested in copyright to do so in a substantive, non-ideological way. Those are the objectives by which I think it should be judged.
  • Ridiculous and ignorant article

    Putting aside the absurd premise of your article (that any company's employee
    who blogs must always be setting out the official policy of the employer), you
    should really do a little research before you attempt to slam someone. If you had
    done the slightest research, you would have found that Bill Patry is one of the
    nation's foremost copyright law authorities (and has been since long before
    Google existed), and in particular has written the only legal reference devoted
    solely to fair use. He has also been blogging for considerably longer than he has
    been at Google. His blog is widely considered the best blog on copyright law, bar
    none, and he diligently posts about all kinds of copyright-related issues as a
    public service, since he does not host advertisements. I worked with Bill for
    several years as a copyright lawyer before he went to Google, and read his
    published work for years prior to that. He is widely respected in his field, and his
    insistance on calling it the way he sees it as a copyright scholar (even when the
    way he saw it was not popular with clients or potential clients) is well known.

    Of course, if you had done the slightest amount of research, then it would have
    spoiled your attempted cheap shot at Google, which presumably was the sole
    motivation for this half-baked attempt at an article. I note that your article is
    devoid of any legal analysis or any other support for your criticism of Bill's blog.
    Indeed, your only mention of the linking case confuses trademark law (which
    protects brands and consumer perception of source and is not relevant to the
    copyright issue Bill commented on) an copyright law. And since you at least
    pretend not to know what Bill meants by "us" I can clue you in. He is talking about
    those of us who care about and work in the field of copyright law. That class of
    folks makes up about 90 percent of the readership of Bill's blog. Sorry you did not
    get it.
    Paul Fakler
  • Googlers blogging