Google Inc. (GOOG)

Symbols:
Authors:

All Comments on GOOG

  • commenter
    sunrises
    Jul 09 12:49 AM
    Culling Strong Tech Names [view article]
    Hi Mark:

    Why doesn't Google just go up to $600plus before dropping back to $460? The volatility benefits more in these times.     Reply
  • commenter
    mythreecents
    Jul 09 12:40 AM
    Culling Strong Tech Names [view article]
    TRADER MARK u said:

    "I am holding Research in Motion (RIMM) simply because I was adding around these levels and it has taken some pain of late"

    after that comment (above), ur 'technical' analysis was met with deaf ears, namely mine, and pretty much cuz u apparently don't eat ur own cooking. but maybe ur a dog, maybe u were trying to post on Seeking Alpo.

    woof     Reply
  • commenter
    peewee
    Jul 09 12:29 AM
    Culling Strong Tech Names [view article]
    Trader Mark,
    I hope you don't do too much trading.
    Fundamentally, the reason GOOG was @ $460 was due to the "click counting", if you recall.
    Q1's results negated the perception of a problem and the lid was blown.
    There is a staff and flag formation since that event (Q1).
    When GOOG was around $585, I suggested that we would not see $520, again.
    Well..., for a period of about 76 minutes, over two days, it was below that mark. My bad!
    Assuming that we don't have a greater general market meltdown, GOOG should be sitting around $630 by Jan 2009.

    Enjoy,

    Michael Z.     Reply
  • commenter
    pshah
    Jul 08 11:56 PM
    Gaps in Mastercard and Fluor Are Being Filled [view article]
    Mark, so what is a good buy point for FLR? Do you think its better to wait for it to approach closer to the 200day MA? Reply
  • commenter
    User 223567
    Jul 08 11:18 PM
    Culling Strong Tech Names [view article]
    I have seen numerous instances where gaps filling did not occur instead double gaps happened which was a bery bullish indicator. Reply
  • commenter
    User 223567
    Jul 08 11:16 PM
    Culling Strong Tech Names [view article]
    What does this article try to prove....?All this gap thesis does not work all the time. Reply
  • commenter
    User 223567
    Jul 08 11:13 PM
    Gaps in Mastercard and Fluor Are Being Filled [view article]
    If the gaps needs to be filled why to gap up in the first place then...?
    Foolish isnt it...? Oh yeah may be it will fill after two gap ups...     Reply
  • commenter
    greencapital
    ist
    Jul 08 09:48 PM
    Gaps in Mastercard and Fluor Are Being Filled [view article]
    voww 220 might be a overkill. even 240 is an overkill for a 25% eps growth company and at 220, its 2009 valuation plunges to 18 or so. this is cheap than cheap.

    at 220 and visa at 80 means visa is doubly expensive (at 40 times current earnings and 33 times 2009 one's). i dont think market will allow it to go 220.

    today it rocketed up on heavy volume. i think 240 is a huge base and it will base around 260 to 280 or worst 250 to 270 and then rocket 75 points from there after a monster 35 to 40% beat (2.75 versus 2.03 expected).

    matrader.blogspot.com     Reply
  • commenter
    Scott Berry
    Jul 08 06:34 PM
    My Website
    Internet Content in Crisis: Are We Becoming Mental Grasshoppers? [view article]
    Couldn't resist here. Individual people don't "evolve" to cope with anything, at least not in a Darwinian sense. But the misconception that we do is exactly the kind of thing an absence of deep thinking and rigorous evaluation can lead to.

    I disagree with much of the "google..stupid&q... article. If people are losing their ability to concentrate and focus because of information snacking, then go read a few books instead. It'll come back, just as exercise and diet will overcome a habit of poor nutritional snacking.

    It's clearly a change in the way (much) of the world operates. The key is to understand the new environment, and adapt to how *other* people are changing.     Reply
  • commenter
    revenue for
    Google?
    Jul 08 01:00 PM
    Google to Help eBay Fight Phishing [view article]
    Does google get paid for this service? Reply
  • commenter
    p. smith
    Jul 08 11:41 AM
    Bargain Hunting: Stocks With Strong Earnings Growth [view article]
    delete those oil related companies and put ITWO in. Reply
  • commenter
    User 201797
    Jul 08 11:39 AM
    Bargain Hunting: Stocks With Strong Earnings Growth [view article]
    If you're going to look at, for example, the gain of these stocks over the last year, then you need to know what the 5-year-growth estimates were for them a year ago, not what it is today. They may have gone up in the past year because the estimates have gone up (Massey Energy comes to mind), in which case it's not surprising that those with high estimates also have high growth in the past year. Reply
  • commenter
    Vlada Kynsky
    Jul 08 03:17 AM
    My Website
    Bargain Hunting: Stocks With Strong Earnings Growth [view article]
    My point is that the investing strategy betting on high growing stocks is successful. Reply
  • commenter
    User 176952
    Jul 07 05:18 PM
    Bargain Hunting: Stocks With Strong Earnings Growth [view article]
    Do you have a Opinion or a View ? Reply
  • commenter
    GeorgeR
    Jul 07 02:37 PM
    My Website
    Judge Demands That YouTube Coughs Up IPs [view article]
    Enjoyed the article, Mathew ... "keep spreading the news"

    **********************...

    Ding dong ... the witch is dead!

    ... or at least she is starting to melt!

    Wow ... I would say this is very good news for the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case in New York may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.

    I have been following this infringment case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?

    In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either") then who do we really have to blame for this chaos? You guessed it.

    It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their publicly financed clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful Internet distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.

    Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.

    Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.

    I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous, excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on, can drag these cases on for years - haven't we seen it all?

    What do the legal terms all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil , Russia , India , and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam the content back here to the states."

    Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson and the Spice Girls weren't already in the 'Public Domain'?"

    Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.

    "What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"

    This kind of unlawful activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING is concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.

    I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.

    As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.

    Congratulations New York . Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered"... copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.

    ... which old witch ... the wicked witch!

    George P. Riddick, III
    Chairman/CEO
    Imageline, Inc.

    griddick@imageline2.co...




    Reply

Trading Center