George R

http://www.imageline2.com

16 Comments

    • Does Google Have a Weakness Microsoft Can Exploit? [view article]
      Google has three major weaknesses. Every single one of them could be exploited by Microsoft and would lead to more market share in both search and advertising.

      Problem is Microsoft is trying mimick these weaknesses rather than exploit them. Much the same as they used to be able to do with software back in their glory days.

      I offered to help Steve and his team with this, as I have been accumulating the evidence of these weaknesses here in my offices for the past two years. I was met with bravado and arrogance. Isn't that what most "outside" people who offer to help Microsoft are met with these days?

      It will take someone of Microsoft's stature to bring these Google weakneses into public view. As long as Microsoft, under Steve's leadership, is too confused, or too afraid, to take chances, I'd stay long on Google if I were you.

      Watch out if these true stories ever do surface publicly, however. Believe it or not, they have something to do with the disgraceful economic condition this country finds itself in these days.

      There is a strong and rapidly growing undercurrent out here who knows these weaknesses, has ben harmed by them, and just cannot wait for this market reality and truth to be told.

      Internet users, who now number almost 1.2 billion, deserve to be told the truth. From there, they can decide who should be their king.

      Jun 27 10:20 AM
    • Bollywood and Hollywood Are Teaming Up for Growth [view article]
      Hi Julia,

      I love Indian "food".

      I also read your articles regularly. I like your "style".

      While I appreciate your optimism regarding India (and perhaps the other three components of the economically explosive BRICS ... that's Brazil, Russia, India, and China ... as well), I think any article on this subject that does not mention Intellectual Property rights and concerns falls short on the big picture ... both the opportunties and the problems.

      Creative industries cannot thrive in economies where 8 out of 10 (or, realistically, even more!) copyrighted works are pirated rather than used under a reasonable licensing fee arrangement.

      Piracy in the BRICS is actually growing in gross numbers, in spite of what these governments claim. It is simply a fact of life that the youth in these countries are NOT taught to respect intellectual property rights at any level of their education.

      These hypocritcal worldwide standards have influenced the youth in this country as well. By and large, we are taught not to steal ... unless, of course that stealing pertains to movies, songs, digtial artwork, and photographs downloaded from the Internet.

      But, at least we do hold people accountable if, and when, we catch them.

      So, by and large, we in this country will respect the Indian Bollywood copyrights while India distibutes our Hollywood works under virtually no government sponsored sense of business integrity or legality.

      Why do you think this country has gotten itself into this economic mess, Julia? We are weak-kneeed on the protection of American copyrights, and quick to look for the PR or business opportunties of producing a movie with cheap labor or making a cameo appearance every now and then.

      "Food" for thought.

      Keep up the dialogue.

      George

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...
      Jun 22 11:48 AM
    • Will 2008 Be Google’s End Of Innocence? [view article]
      Good morning, Michael

      In my view, you will see this begin to happen in 2009, not in the middle of an election year. The other issues where Google slipped under the radar screen during the past eight years of the current administration have been unlawful search activities and Intellectual Property violations.

      It would be very interesting, indeed, to learn what percentage of Googles's total search and advertsing revenue has been attributed to unlawful activites (child pornography, gambling, and the like) as well as items violating the copyrights of others (songs, articles, poems, recipes, artwork, photos, TV shows, movies, etc.).

      The "do no evil" days were a complete sham in my view, and I see this all of this catching up to them starting late this year.

      Have you noticed the number of law suits these folks from Mountain View spend their sharholders money on? It's shameful.

      They've been chewing on those apples for longer than you think!
      Jun 17 09:30 AM
    • Ballmer Is Bad News for Microsoft [view article]
      Hi Jason,

      Short ... to the point ... and, dead on. People do not realize how critically important the right CEO (and personality) is to the branding of an international growth company these days.

      In Steve's defense, Bill is a tough act to follow. But following such an act with arrogance and a deep inward desire to return to "the glory days" of the past is a doomsday strategy if there has ever been one.

      Apple is thriving these days because they portray an innovative leading edge consumer-oriented brand and historical image. There will always be growth in that market. Microsoft's more technical and stoggy brand might be fine for IT professionals and large corporations, but to make any real progress in the consumer and international channels and cultures, something far more radical has to happen.

      I have been in the technology branding and image creation businesses for almost 30 years now. Even today, the old Apple ads branding them against "big brother" IBM, and today's branding "Mac" agains the entire "PC" world are award winners if I have ever seen any. They are funny, memorable, and effective.

      We'll see how Microsoft's new consumer branding agency decides to take on this battle. Unfortunately for Steve, more than just a "hip" new advertising agency may be needed.

      The Microsoft board show know this. But, here again, they are the ones who seem to support the status quo of the present regime.

      Maybe Yahoo needed to be the surviving entity!

      Should be "interesting"...

      George

      griddick@imageline2.co...
      Jun 08 03:42 PM
    • What Should Jerry Do? My Advice to Yahoo [view article]
      This was as good of an article as I have read in months, Tim. Thank you very much. I totally agree with practically everything you said.

      I will elaborate on one particular thing you said, however. I firmly believe this "deal" may signal the end of Wall Street as we have known it for the past ten years or so. In my view, that would be wonderful news. Those "fat cats" are simply not able to "fix" technology deals like they used to ... as they do everything else.

      They are simply not smart enough these days. People are sick and tired of their greedy ways.

      The rocket scientists in the valley and in Redmond blow them away. Where would YOU rather work if given a choice?

      Anyway, Yahoo is a "terrific" brand. They are in the top five in Sports, Jobs, Health, News, E-mail, Search, Photos, Small Business, local Newspapers and Directories, and many more areas too varied to mention.

      People do not like Microsoft and do not in general see them representing true innovation. That will not get better under Ballmer in my view.

      And probably even more important in the long run, people have finally noticed some of the "gray-line" business practices, infringment activities, and corporate ethics out there at Google.

      They have preyed on people's apparent ignorance (or at least what
      Google perceives as ignorance) for far too many years already.

      If the Yahoo folks would simply put their collective heads down and start to work for their shareholders for a change (rather than seeming to be continously in a "scramble"), the results might surprise everyone. Even themselves!

      What's wrong with organic growth and profits when you're in so many strong related markets, several of which could become the next Microsoft or Google "killer app"?

      Thanks for writing this one, Tim!

      George

      griddick@imageline2.co...
      May 11 03:29 PM
    • The Process of Journalism [view article]
      Hi Matthew,

      Thought you might be interested in my response to Jeff Jarvis as copied below. As you no doubt can tell, I am also a frustrated journalist.

      George

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

      Excellent post, Jeff

      However, I think you assume one thing which may throw your entire analysis out of kilter.

      It appears to me you take for granted that today's journalists have the same integrity, ethics, and fair minded principles of their predecessors.

      From my experience in the technology industry over the past ten years, I think you may want to reconsider the vital role interaction plays, or should play, in keeping this new wave of journalists honest and assuring they report the scandals as aggressively as they do the profits and those making all of the money.

      For those of your readers who are interested, I have attached an article I wrote recently on a similar subject. It is called Journalism 2009. Beware. It is a bit long.

      Thanks for keeping these important issues, and debates, front and center.

      George

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

      Journalism 2009

      You know, it occurred to me lately that one of the main victims of a society laden with greed and corruption, such as the one based out of Wall Street and the Silicon Valley today, is the professional journalist. These men and women who were idealist in their youth, and set out on a career path based on sound principles, personal integrity, and honesty ... not simply on deceit and the accumulation of cash. From my experience, these folks, in general, believe that telling the world the truth far outweighs any potential financial gain one might achieve by being deceitful or twisting the truth around to suit their sponsors and/or investors.

      This appears to be the dying breed, however, and I find it all very sad and depressing. Not so much for me, but for my children and grandchildren.

      I actually thought I might want to be a journalist when I ended my first short-lived career as a Navy Officer some time back. But sticking to my roots as a graphic artist and designer won out. Some refer to us as the "starving artists" of our society. I now own several of the leading electronic graphic arts content businesses in the world, however ... so, lucky me.

      It all started with the "dot com" boom

      This notion about the current state of objective journalism first came to me back in the late 90s when the "dot com" industry was just starting to boom. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was going public. Let alone Jane, Sue, and Abigail.

      I started noticing that many of the companies going public were loaded with nothing more than stolen property and hot air. Since several of the major ones (I won't name names, but some of their initials were Xoom, ZDNet, Lycos, InfoSpace, Jumbo, and ArtToday) had also pirated our proprietary graphic arts software products and were giving them away for "free" as an incentive to sign up "eye-balls", we stood up and took particular note of what was truly happening in this new Internet world. That, too, was very sad and depressing.

      It didn't take a rocket scientist to learn quickly that the likes of Bear Sterns, and other prominent investment banking concerns on Wall Street and elsewhere, were actually encouraging these Internet scams, not trying to report them, or protect their clients or customers, in their IPO circular disclaimers. The term "due diligence" had apparently taken on an entirely different meaning to the investment bankers, lawyers, and auditors in the new "dot com" world.

      We were blown away. We weren't doing things like that in Central Virginia where we were based. In fact, no one I knew was even thinking about building up bogus shell companies based on stolen property, and false promises, and promoting them heavily to unsuspecting little old ladies in Omaha. I guess you could say we were doing things the old fashioned way ... with a bit of creativity, integrity, honesty, hard work, and fair play.

      Wait a second, since these new Internet IPOs are loaded with stolen property and hot air ... what could we do?

      Well, we were forced to hire attorneys to protect our property, attorneys who made more in an hour than any of our employees did in a day, or in some cases in an entire week ... and things only went from bad to worse after that. The copyright laws in this country were not being enforced by the judiciary at all in the early Internet days. Journalists would not report on the obvious. Journalists did not help us fight this cascading disease. It was as simple as that. Piracy was the new secret weapon in the high tech world. And it was far more profitable than any other weapon in the Internet company arsenals, by a huge margin. Stealing, and promising extraordinary profits from the eyeballs of the future, was accepted as the "new norm".

      So, we came up with a brilliant idea. Let's provide some incentive to the journalists to tell this story truthfully and see how the little old ladies in Omaha, and elsewhere, react. Journalists love "scoops", or so we thought. We tracked down the most prominent and active investigative journalists at companies like Marketwatch, TheStreet.com, CNET, Forbes, the New York Times, CNN, NBC, Wired magazine, and elsewhere, and guess what we learned? As soon as a responsible journalist would start reporting the truth about these Internet companies and their IPO scams, the journalist would suddenly clam up completely ... be transferred ... or disappear off the face of the earth.

      What? Why? Well, it seems that almost every company you could imagine was planning their own IPO, acquisition, or merger scam to take advantage of the tech-ignorant public, demonstrate how tech-savvy their aging officers and directors were, and enrich their owners. I won't name the specific journalists here, or even their companies, but there were quite a few, believe me. I am sure you know many of them. It shocked us all.

      So, who did the "dot com" bust really wipe out?

      Well, the inevitable "dot com bust" wiped out all of the little old ladies in Omaha. And the little old men, who were counting on their pension, stock portfolio, and mutual finds for survival, as well. The Internet visionaries, venture capitalists, privileged clients, and investment bankers had already taken out all of their millions of dollars quickly, and quietly, and retired, if only temporarily, to their mansions and penthouses overlooking Central Park, San Francisco Bay, and Lake Tahoe.

      For a few years after the bust, things started to drift back towards normal, but not for long. You see, a whole new breed of greedy investment bankers, unscrupulous venture capitalists, and unethical business executives had found a brand new prey. A two pronged prey this time. Prong one. Bring in the top software engineers and rocket scientists in the world to bamboozle a still unsuspecting public with blazing Internet speeds, more new technogarble that no one could possibly understand, and new products and services. An even some of the more profitable products and services, like stolen property in digital form, from the past. The Googles of the world set out to make the late 90s and early 2000s look like a pleasant stroll in the park, or a neighborhood tea party, in the annals of history. Their new sights were set in the billions, not the millions.

      Where were the objective journalists in all of this?

      So where did all of the professional journalists go? Are you kidding? Many of them formed new companies to ride on the Google express train this time around, many settled back into other arenas outside the continuous scams of the technology elite, some formed new media and television shows to capitalize on "the next new wave", many moved on to other professions, and still others reported the story just as Google, Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft instructed them to do. A few who I admire stood their ground and got pushed aside by their corporate executives.

      How many journalists at the Wall Street Journal today do you think are researching unlawful operating procedures, and ongoing copyright infringement activities, at MySpace ... with the intent of actually reporting what they find? Who at the New York Times has anything objective to say about some of questionable information being distributed by About.com? Even CNET, perhaps the ultimate hypocrite, is in rumors to be dating Google seriously, while still courting other potential deep pocketed suitors, in the Internet space. Do you think their reporting is objective these days? Okay, who's job is it to report on digital piracy found throughout the CNET Network, itself. ZDNet and TechRepublic ... I don't think so!

      So what is the solution? The vast majority of real people out here want objective journalism in their lives. Not journalism directed only to where the advertising and the money is.

      Can bloggers save the day?

      Thank God for the bloggers. The little old ladies and men of Omaha are fighting back. They have taught their children to be bloggers (or maybe it was the other way around) ... and they have personal stories to tell ... and plenty of them. They are not blinded by ambition based on greed, or under the threat of losing their jobs if their public company bosses don't like what they say. They don't have to worry about anyone coming down on them for reporting the truth. They are the great equalizers. They may even help to set the woeful politicians and the legal community straight. How great would that be for all of us?

      But readers ... please beware. It was naivety that got us into this mess in the first place. Many of these new bloggers are lions in sheep's clothing. They are poisonous snakes in the tall green grass. When I hear that the top blogger reporting about copyright law and protection issues in the country is actually a lawyer on Google's payroll, it gives me the creeps. It makes me want to hug someone in Omaha. When I watch Yahoo assist China in sending someone (just like your college son or daughter) who has simply reported the truth to jail, it makes me cringe. When I see Google, Microsoft and Yahoo willfully placing advertisements on illegal pornography and gambling web sites, it really makes me wonder. When I realize that the public is actually financing this organized attack on American integrity and honest journalism, it makes me want to scream out even louder.

      You would scream out, too, if you really knew all that was happening. The next generations will pay the price for this greed and deception.

      Come out bloggers ... we are counting on you. And there are now over a billion of us connected to this Internet world who are not out to make our fortune off of stolen property or from greedy business practices and deceit. And billions more to come. Please help us clean up, and wipe out, this greedy and unethical Internet and Wall Street investment banking crowd before it is too late.

      For some reason, I have confidence in the people on this one. I am one who is anxious to see the NEW Journalism 2009 come into play.


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

      griddick@imageline2.co...

      Apr 16 10:40 AM
    • Why Do Time Warner and News Corp Want Yahoo? [view article]
      Nice article, Julia.

      I find all of this fascinating from my position as a small business owner and Internet addict.

      I do disagree with one of things you said in your post, however. While I see AOL having lost its identity (and its perceived self confidence) on the global stage, I do not see this with Yahoo. I think you, the media, have been too hard on them. As I see it, they are the premium small to mid-size business and consumer brand in the entire Internet space. And their services in finance, real estate, e-mail, personals, and sports seem to have dominant market positions both here in the U.S., and elsewhere. I have been in branding for 25 years. The Yahoo brand is excellent. To me, it still stands for innovation and leadership in a still infant age industry.

      Google, while its brand as a word oriented search product, is substantial, has confused the overall market with its investments in green technologies (wonderful industry, and mission, but why Google?), the cellular airwaves, Aerospace, chicken coops, healthcare, and basically everything else its rocket scientist executives can think of. I see the company VERY vulnerable though the Internet's next phase.

      By and large, the Internet world's current power players have grown up not liking Microsoft. Microsoft stands for high prices, elitist attitudes, billionaire owners, software glitches, government influence, and a ton of other things that the masses simply do not care for and cannot relate to. I do not see that attitude changing anytime soon, as Ballmer appears to be somewhat arrogant in both his style and his approach towards partnering. He simply does not have the "presence" that Gates had, and still has, on the global stage. If nothing else, the folks from Redmond could absolutely ruin whatever reputation and/or momentum Yahoo has established in the small business, social networking, and higher end of the consumer channels.

      My vote. An independent Yahoo, or a Yahoo combined with AOL, Softbank, Alibaba, or even MySpace, is the best thing for the overall market. As a consumer, and as a potential business partner to all of them, I firmly believe that more choice is better than limited choice, and we will all be better off in the next Internet phase with a third leg on this Microsoft and Google dominated stool.

      Thanks for sharing your views with the rest of us.

      George
      griddick@imageline2.co...       Apr 13 01:01 PM
    • What's Yahoo Worth to Microsoft Without Alibaba? [view article]
      What makes the most sense to me, Larry, even though I am not convinced that it the best move for this country, is for a group of Japanese, Chinese, German, and/or Indian technology and content companies to come in and take over Yahoo. They could actually pay the folks in Sunnyvale a premium, and probably come out ahead in the long run. More important, perhaps, is that they could stop the spread of "Microsoftism&quo... in their parts of the world.

      These are no longer pure American "deals". Folks in Asia and Europe are not interested in this Internet becoming a two man race between Microsoft and Google. It's as simple as that. Why people cannot see this is beyond me.

      Hope all is well for you with changes out there at CNET.

      George

      Gpaine3@yahoo.com
      Mar 29 12:04 PM
    • Local Advertising Network Revenues Threatened By Search Industry [view article]
      Hi Douglas,

      Google is doing everyhing it can to turnthe world of advertiing into a science. After all, most of the rocket scientists now coming out of engineering schools want to join the free lunch program in Mountain View.

      But effective advertising strikes a delicate balance between "science" and "art". Salespeople on the street can provide a degree of the "art" if they truly understand their clients needs.

      Many advertisers don't have a clue what Google is actually doing with their money. If they did, we'd see some very big changes in this industry in short order.


      Advertising's new world order

      I read somewhere recently that it's a battle between Google and Microsoft to determine who will be the next great advertising company in this country. Get serious ... who is buying this garbage?

      I have been in and around the advertising business for my entire life. In fact, I am a third generation graphic arts designer ... only my specialty is digital. My grandfather started making a living in the ad industry in 1918, at the age of 19. His son followed. Both of my brothers and my sister have spent most of their life in advertising as well. My nephew is now attending one of the most prestigious advertising graduate degree programs in the world ... and is knocking them dead. Even my 16-year-old daughter has the knack.

      The advertising industry demands perfection ... and vision. It tries to strike the perfect balance between super creative people, media experts, business people and account executives. While it sometimes stretches the norm and produces an ad like the infamous Apple attack on IBM, or the sexy new GoDaddy models trying to host your web site accounts, it always plays within the rules. If it doesn't, you, the consumers, will let them know. You don't see laws being violated every single day by these agencies ... whether they relate to smoking prohibitions, pornography, blatant racial prejudice, or generally offensive materials of any sort. You make a mistake like Don Imus and "pow", you're taken off the air. Your advertisers dump you. And you certainly don't steal other people's work. Words ... images ... music. The industry has for the most part learned how to protect its own. The ad industry respects copyrights.

      Social responsibility, respect for individual creative skills, and copyright protection have become a way of life in this industry. And now targeted advertising can be delivered to us on the device of our choice (mobile or static) and exactly when we might want to see, or hear, it. How exciting?

      But it's not all about the bucks, folks. Advertising requires a degree of class ... sophistication ... social responsibility ... and an understanding of what is visually appealing and what is not. How many flashing, hopping, beeping, or honking pop up ads, or scrolls, can someone watch before the device ends up in the bottom of the lake in a fit of rage, anyway?

      What advertisers in their right mind are looking to recruit Michael Vick these days ... and we won't know the certainty of that case for many months to come. Even the slightest hint of cruelty, or lawlessness, can set a concerned advertiser, and its clients, into an uproar. The established rule has always been to avoid controversy at all costs. Let the journalists do their job on that front ... not the ad agencies.

      The technology industry is entirely different. It thrives on controversy. Whether it's Microsoft stealing its ideas for Windows from Apple, or Apple stealing its interfaces and designs from HP, they are all roughly the same. It's always been that way. Try to get away with anything you can until the government authorities threaten to shut you down ... or, worst yet, put you behind bars. And if you accumulate enough cash money in the process, you can even fend off the government if you choose.

      I know. I went to work for IBM in the mid-70's. Almost got disinherited by my "advertising"... family in the process, but there I went anyway. We weren't taught creativity much at all in those days. It was more FUD than anything else. For those of you new to the industry, that's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. "If you don't pay three times as much for this IBM system you are likely to lose all of your data ... and then your wife ... and eventually all of your children." IBM finally met its match in the 80's and took a dive from grace. They fell asleep at the wheel. I call it "we're #1 syndrome".

      Then Microsoft took over. Predatory business practices ruled the roost. "Bundle this or we'll squash you. License us your ideas for pennies or we'll steal them anyway. Antitrust issues be damned. We are much better pitch men then you folks will ever be." Never had a company made so much money so quickly. "Hey, this controversy stuff isn't all that bad, now, is it?"

      Then came the 90's. The decade started off with a strong rumor that a guy named McAfee had invented a cure for the computer virus (Michelangelo) that many thought he invented in the first place. And both the disease and cure spread like wildfire. When I saw him being interviewed by Bryant Gumbel on the Today Show I knew we were in for big trouble. The technology industry has never been the same. These software engineers are sure smart, but should they really be allowed to operate outside the law of the land? I don't think so.

      By the end of the 90's, the Internet had taken hold. And every two-bit pirate want-a-be in the world was now an official publisher. You could go public by selling air, but stealing other people's property, selling polluted air, and then recruiting an audience to your party, or new community as they called it, was much more exciting. Business ethics be damned. The advertising industry was supposed to attend and sponsor the feast as well, but few quality firms participated at this early stage. Something didn't smell right. Tell me again why "eyeballs" are more important than "profits"?, a few from the old school would quietly whisper to each other their concerns for fear of being heard and considered to be behind the times. No riches were reserved for dinosaurs in this new game.

      I found it almost too sad to watch as many of our modern day business "heroes", like GE Chairman, Jack Welch, and NBC Chairman and CEO, Bob Wright, got snookered by some of these new Internet visionaries, and convinced their advertisers to tag along. They weren't about to miss out on this new "zero gravity" wave ... whatever the heck that meant anyway.

      So now the dust is finally settling and Web 2.0 has brought about a new world order. Power to the people. Controversy brings eyeballs and is sought after now, not avoided. Social networking is hot, buying goods via auctions over the Internet is in vogue, and user supplied content is virtually uncensored ... all of our norms are starting to change. And the software engineers and scientists out at Google have finally figured out how to dupe Madison Avenue, not just Wall Street, out of its money ... let alone the poor small business out there on Main Street!

      Google refuses to follow the standards of objective and straightforward journalism and guess what ... journalism has started to die. Google unilaterally decides to digitize every single book they can get their hands on around the world without the copyright owners' permission ... and guess what ... the book publishing industry turns into a steep downward cycle ... if not a tail spin. Newspapers are all selling out, if not giving up. Google pays $1.65 billion for a start up company called YouTube, that, by and large, uses stolen property to attract its customers. Technology companies agree to censor content in China while the Chinese government applauds the fact that its piracy rate is now only slightly above the 80% level. Kids get thrown out of fraternities, or social clubs, if they are found actually paying for music or movies they download online ... let alone using e-mail. These are no longer socially acceptable practices ... or hip. Obnoxious and intrusive advertising smears all of our online lives. Who produces these pop-up and banner ads anyway? The whole advertising industry has caved into the "science" of it all ... and it's supposed to strike a delicate balance between both science and art. Always has.

      Hey, I'm not against progress. I love these search engines and what they can do. Used fairly, they can really enhance our lives. But I don't want to be exposed to stolen property every time I turn around. Are there really 147,645 companies out there giving away original graphic arts content that is part of the "public domain" as Google claims? I don't think so. I'm aware that I, too, have potential liability even as an innocent user of this digital "stuff" I download online when the property is stolen. I just want to hear the truth. Who owns the content on your website anyway? Never had to worry about his sort of thing before. Responsible advertisers would provide me with a shield. I just like being told when I'm about to get hoodwinked. "Bend over ... we realize that there's no water in the shower, but our engineers are working on that one as well." Semantic water.

      Go ahead, technology companies. Take all of the money. You might as well before another country like Brazil, Russia, India or China (the so-called emerging BRICs) starts to dominate the game.

      But please don't call yourself an advertising company. You're a delivery medium. Stick to your knitting. We've had to solve enough problems over the years ... dealing with our own unique blend of greenhairs and greenbacks ... on our own!

      Long live the power of the honest pitch! Wake up advertising companies ... we need you!

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

      griddick@mageline2.com       Aug 24 11:17 AM
    • Is Google Becoming An Enemy To Open Source? [view article]
      "Toggling" only works for a very short amount of time, Larry. You are either a Democrat or a Republican (Roos Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Paulson, and the other independent aside) n this country. You don't ge tot wait to see how weveryone is voting asnd then decide.

      Google is a hypocrit on this subject matter. Just like it has become a hypocrit on so many other subjects ... and especially when they relate to copyrights and trademarks.

      Google steals food from the farmers and gives it to the poor ... problem is .. most of the farmers are poor as well. It's a PR stunt .. pure and simple. Read on and you'll see what I mean.

      The Tip of the Iceberg

      Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed, a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

      It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

      Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

      Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of venture capital, outside investment, and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases .. much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation"... for "anti-Microsoft&q... for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and most of all for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

      One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds, not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to help spread the word in that direction as well. "Is it fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?"

      Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

      And perhaps even worse, the other giant search engine companies, like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner, seem to be following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

      So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

      - book publishers
      - book authors
      - illustrators
      - cartoonists
      - poets
      - journalists
      - songwriters
      - animators
      - digitizers
      - musicians
      - television studios
      - designers
      - photographers
      - playwrights
      - universities
      - producers
      - cable operators
      - actors and actresses
      - professional athletes
      - artists
      - comedians
      - speech writers
      - magazine columnists
      - models
      - writers
      - newspaper editors
      - comic strip creators
      - videographers
      - investigative reporters
      - movie makers
      - programmers

      Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

      In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

      How does any modern, civilized, government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
      What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

      How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way like we do, so that we can all profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

      I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its own sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

      "Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, industry journalists, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice what you're really doing doesn't work across the board, Google.

      Google's recent 10Q disclosures should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 22 10:49 AM
    • Google Continues to Gain Search Traffic Share [view article]
      Hi Paul,

      I got an e-mail this morning that really annoyed me. Reading this post re market share for search engine companies just triggered my emotions.

      The e-mail I received read something like this ..."George, the masses don't care whether the content they download from Google et al is stolen property or not ... they just want to get it lightning fast!"

      WRONG! I don't believe that for one second. The "masses" simply do not know the risk these giant search engine companies put them in because the media has done a terrible job of getting this word out.

      I know ... I have been fighting the battle against Internet piracy for over 15 years now. It is worse today than it has ever been ... by a factor of at least ten fold from what I can see.

      Are you aware of the fact that prior knowledge is NOT a prerequisite for a copyright infringement claim in this country? In other words, everyone who downloads an unlicensed video, movie, song, photo or illustrated artwork (whether thye think it is authorized or not) from the Internet and publishes, displays, or performs it in any fashion has the potential of being liable to the copyright holder. And the consequences can be severe. We call it "willful blindness".

      So why do the "masses" seem to encourage the access to, and reteival from, obvious piracy web sites through these search engine companies? Copyright infringement through the image search engines is blowing all piracy statistics (and attempts to curtail this epidemic) off the charts.

      It is my firm belief that the only reason this is tolerated is a lack of knowledge within the vast majority of Internet users worldwide. Modern day's "silent majority"

      Isn't it your job to inform them?

      Curious to hear your answer to this question.

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 21 12:35 PM
    • Microsoft's Ballmer Starting Own Yahoo-Buying Rumor? [view article]
      Hi Paul,

      Ever given any thought to the possiblity that Yahoo will eventually become the pursuer rather than the pursued?

      I have watched this industry very closely for the past 15-20 years and I see a few disburbing trends in today's market. On the other hand, I like the positioning that Yahoo now has.

      I would like to see them remain independent or combine with someone closer to their size. They already lead the race in Intenet mindshare ... or are very close to it anyway. I'm not sure I see what Microsoft does for them ... other than a possible "uptick" in share value with the purchase.

      Heres' my view of the tech sector these days:

      Has anyone noticed the tech industry sell-off recently? I mean the tech "insiders". Folks like Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, and Bill Gates ... as well as a slew of other investment bankers, Chairmen, directors, CEO's, and VPs within some our supposedly strongest technology companies?

      I have, especially in and around Google.

      But Yahoo seems to be a bit different ... wonder why? Their CEO and others seem to be buying shares and exercising options without dumping the underlying shares right into the market.

      I am not a financial analyst. Far from it. But I do know a thing or two about the stock market and advertising. I have been in or around the advertising business for over fifty years now. I've also watched a lot of tech companies rise and fall. I have a vested interest in the technology industries in that I own several companies who participate in the domain name branding and graphic arts content development sectors, both of which are affected by changes in the public perception of, and confidence in, some of the larger companies in our industry. I'm usually the eternal optimist, but I'm worried.

      I've watched a handful of publicly traded Internet, software, entertainment, and telecom companies over the past 120 days very closely. Here's a list in descending market cap order as of Monday, August 6, 2007:

      - GE/NBC Universal ($399.40B)
      - Microsoft ($277.09B)
      - Google ($158.59B)
      - IBM ($154.82B)
      - Apple ($117.48)
      - Comcast ($80.29B)
      - Time Warner ($72.30B)
      - Disney ($68.43B)
      - eBay ($45.83B)
      - Yahoo ($31.19B)
      - Amazon ($32.49B)
      - Adobe ($23.24B)
      - WPP Group ($17.82B)
      - IAC/Ask.com ($8.08B)
      - Baidu ($6.93B)
      - Getty Images ($2.07B)
      - CNET Networks ($1.11B)
      - Jupitermedia ($242.00M)

      Of these, only GE, Apple, eBay, Amazon, and Baidu had an increase in value over the last three months. Amazon gained the most market value (roughly $4.5 billion) compared to second place Apple at just under $3 billion, while Google leads the losers with a drop in market value of just over $10 billion, with Microsoft a close second at around $9 billion. Any wonder why one of Google's lead investors, its CEO, and other key executives are selling off shares?

      In all, the six major U.S. search engine companies in our analysis (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, IAC/Ask, Time Warner/AOL, and CNET) lost a whopping $34+ billion in just 90 days. I thought profitable search advertising was growing like wildfire? On the other side of the world, China's leading search engine company, Baidu, gained almost a billion dollars in value in that same time period, among the strongest we've studied on a percentage basis.

      I must be wrong. I also thought we had been in a strong bull market until the adjustments several weeks back. Wasn't the 14,000 breakthrough this summer a sign of good news for all industries, including "tech"? Better think again.

      The money these tech companies are now paying for relatively small online advertising companies is astronomical. Is it possible that all these online advertising companies, and some of their major clients, have been able to "hype" these tech oriented companies and their tech-centric executives? Now wouldn't that be the ultimate "spin"? Don't you just love the ingenuity of these Madison Avenue types ... especially the newer generation that lives on Main Street and focuses on the online world.

      With all of these players (technology, communications, entertainment and advertising) now singing from the same song book, and working together on development, effectiveness, measurements, promotions, PR and content delivery, do any us lay people really stand a chance? Open your checkbooks.

      "Vaporware meets its advertising match"... don't you just love it?

      **********************...
      Back to Yahoo

      Is it possible Yahoo has had this right all along? Although their market value has slipped substantially, their executives seem to be buying Yahoo shares, not selling. They are able to test new graphic advertising techniques without making a multi-billion dollar outside investment, like Google and Microsoft have chosen to do. Wouldn't that be a "kick" if Yahoo has indeed spent this time of industry turmoil and chaos to strengthen its relationships with its advertisers, business partners, content providers, and customers while Microsoft and Google concentrate on destroying each other at all costs.

      I am a little biased because I've stuck with Yahoo for the past ten years through thick and thin. But this does make for a compelling alternative to all the negatives I've read about the company from investment bankers, select journalists, and others over the past six months.

      What do you think?

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 21 11:34 AM
    • 67% of Yahoo Visitors Using Email: SmartAds Should Target Those Users [view article]
      I agree. Yahoo just needs to slow down a bit and catch it's breath. Wall Street and much of the media have been brutal to them over the past few months. I, for one, believe the decision to move aside Terry was a good one. He was far too expensive in my view.

      I have noticed Yahoo insiders buying stock and exercising options without dumping the shares directly into the market in recent months. I also like what I've seen from Susan Decker. We'll see.

      I think the Yahoo e-mail group is about as loyal of a following as you get these days. And SmartAds seem far less intrusive to me there than they would/do during an "entertainment&qu... session (i.e. watching short vidoe clip or watching a joke unfold through animation).

      Don't count out Yahoo. While Microsoft and Google duke it out, these folks might just be laying the groundwork for an exciting end run.

      Here's a related article I wrote a few weeks back:

      Cashing Out!

      Has anyone noticed the tech industry sell-off recently? I mean the tech "insiders". Folks like Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, and Bill Gates ... as well as a slew of other investment bankers, Chairmen, directors, CEO's, and VPs within some our supposedly strongest technology companies?

      I have, especially in and around Google.

      I am not a financial analyst. Far from it. But I do know a thing or two about the stock market and advertising. I have been in or around the advertising business for over fifty years now. I've also watched a lot of tech companies rise and fall. I have a vested interest in the technology industries in that I own several companies who participate in the domain name branding and graphic arts content development sectors, both of which are affected by changes in the public perception of, and confidence in, some of the larger companies in our industry. I'm usually the eternal optimist, but I'm worried.

      I've watched a handful of publicly traded Internet, software, entertainment, and telecom companies over the past 120 days very closely. Here's a list in descending market cap order as of Monday, August 6, 2007:

      - GE/NBC Universal ($399.40B)
      - Microsoft ($277.09B)
      - Google ($158.59B)
      - IBM ($154.82B)
      - Apple ($117.48)
      - Comcast ($80.29B)
      - Time Warner ($72.30B)
      - Disney ($68.43B)
      - eBay ($45.83B)
      - Yahoo ($31.19B)
      - Amazon ($32.49B)
      - Adobe ($23.24B)
      - WPP Group ($17.82B)
      - IAC/Ask.com ($8.08B)
      - Baidu ($6.93B)
      - Getty Images ($2.07B)
      - CNET Networks ($1.11B)
      - Jupitermedia ($242.00M)

      Of these, only GE, Apple, eBay, Amazon, and Baidu had an increase in value over the prior three months. Amazon gained the most market value (roughly $4.5 billion) compared to second place Apple at just under $3 billion, while Google led the losers with a drop in market value of just over $10 billion, with Microsoft a close second at around $9 billion. Any wonder why one of Google's lead investors, its CEO, and other key executives are selling off shares?

      In all, the six major U.S. search engine companies in our analysis (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, IAC/Ask, Time Warner/AOL, and CNET) lost a whopping $34+ billion in just three months. I thought profitable search advertising was growing like wildfire? On the other side of the world, China's leading search engine company, Baidu, gained almost a billion dollars in value, among the strongest we've studied on a percentage basis.

      I must be wrong. I also thought we had been in a strong bull market until the adjustments a few weeks back. Wasn't the 14,000 breakthrough a sign of good news for all industries, including "tech"? Better think again. Look at where we are now!

      The money these tech companies are now paying for relatively small online advertising companies is astronomical. Is it possible that all these online advertising companies, and some of their major clients, have been able to "hype" these tech oriented companies and their executives? Now wouldn't that be the ultimate "spin"? Don't you just love the ingenuity of these Madison Avenue types ... especially the newer generation that lives on Main Street and focuses on the online world.

      With all of these players (technology, communications, entertainment and advertising) now singing from the same song book, and working together on development, effectiveness, measurements, promotions, PR and content delivery, do any us lay people really stand a chance? Open your checkbooks.

      "Vaporware in advertising"... don't you just love it?

      **********************...
      Back to Yahoo.

      Is it possible Yahoo has had this right all along? Although their market value has slipped substantially, their executives seem to be buying Yahoo shares, not selling. They are able to test new graphic advertising techniques without making a multi-billion dollar outside investment, like Google and Microsoft have chosen to do. Wouldn't that be a "kick" if Yahoo has indeed spent this time of industry turmoil and chaos to strengthen its relationships with its advertisers, business partners, content providers, and customers while Microsoft and Google concentrate on destroying each other at all costs.

      I am a little biased because I've stuck with Yahoo for the past ten years through thick and thin. But this does make for a compelling alternative to all the negatives I've read about the company from investment bankers, select journalists, and others over the past six months.

      What do you think?

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 20 11:28 AM
    • Is Google Reinventing Management? [view article]
      Hi Larry,

      I always enjoy your articles and posts.

      Google is one of the most interesting "stories" I've watched unfold in this industry in over thirty years (I started with IBM back in the early 70's ... no dinosaur comments, please).

      The engineers, and their technology, at Google are truly remarkable. I use its search engines routinely and just added "News Alerts" last week. Lightning fast ... and VERY comprehensive ... that's all I can say!

      However, it appears to me that you, and most other journalists I follow, seem to ignore one huge and important facet of this analysis. Hasn't Google set a completely new standard of operations and legal protocol by completely ignoring our existng copyright laws and running roughshod over anyone who tries to stop them?

      This, moreso than management, financial, and marketing talents, will be their ultimate downfall in my opinion ... and I've witnessed quite a few of this industry's "superstars" crash and burn over the years.

      Here's a related article I wrote recently. I'd love to hear your comments ... both good and bad.

      The Tip of the Iceberg

      Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

      It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

      Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

      Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of venture capital, investment, and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases ... much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation"... for "anti-Microsoft&q... for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and, most of all, for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

      One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to spread the word in that direction as well. "Is it fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?"

      Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

      And perhaps even worse, the other search companies like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner seem to following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

      So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

      - book publishers
      - book authors
      - illustrators
      - cartoonists
      - poets
      - journalists
      - songwriters
      - animators
      - digitizers
      - musicians
      - television studios
      - designers
      - photographers
      - playwrights
      - universities
      - producers
      - cable operators
      - actors and actresses
      - professional athletes
      - artists
      - comedians
      - speech writers
      - magazine columnists
      - models
      - writers
      - newspaper editors
      - comic strip creators
      - videographers
      - investigative reporters
      - movie makers
      - programmers

      Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

      In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

      How does any modern, civilized government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
      What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

      How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it like we do in a very big way, so that we can all profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

      I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its own sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

      "Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, the journalists, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice what you're you really doing doesn't work across the board, Google.

      Google's recent 10Q disclosures teel it all ... should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 16 11:29 AM
    • Noteworthy Nuggets From Google’s 10Q [view article]
      The Tip of the Iceberg

      Google's "do no evil" slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide. People who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Novel and others and who wanted, and needed a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the "hype".

      It worked ... probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google's CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric ... we hear you!

      Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the "do no evil" banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google's reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth. Their timing was impeccable, as was their implementation.

      Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of Venture Capital and advertising dollars and "Google" quickly became a common household word ... even a verb in many cases .. much like "Xerox" was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for "innovation"... for "anti-Microsoft&q... for "free and open source" and "free and open applications", for "open and honest discovery", and most of all for "simple and lightning fast search". I don't see too much evil in those causes, do you? ... "DO NO EVIL".

      One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It's kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world's millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions of dollars provides a ton of legal and public relations support to spread the word in that direction as well. "Is is fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?

      Maybe I'm old school, but the shenanigans I've witnessed over the past three or four years since Google went public are the antithesis of "good deeds" from my experience.

      And perhaps even worse, the companies like Microsoft, IAC, and Time Warner seem to following Google's lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these companies about these concerns.

      So, who are the farmers? Well, here's just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

      - book publishers
      - book authors
      - illustrators
      - cartoonists
      - poets
      - journalists
      - songwriters
      - animators
      - digitizers
      - musicians
      - television studios
      - designers
      - photographers
      - playwrights
      - universities
      - producers
      - cable operators
      - actors and actresses
      - professional athletes
      - artists
      - comedians
      - speech writers
      - magazine columnists
      - models
      - writers
      - newspaper editors
      - comic strip creators
      - videographers
      - investigative reporters
      - movie makers
      - programmers

      Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past five years ... both here and in Europe. Almost always pertaining to intellectual property ... trademarks, copyrights, patents.

      In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally thousands and thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE giving its two 20-something founders the lion's share of $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm. How does any modern, civilized government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
      What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

      How about this one. "You probably shouldn't do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way, so that we can profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of our "docs" and other "apps" (one of Google's terms for "food") along the way."

      I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its sword so that the original "Evil Empire" (according to Google anyway) can pick its way through the spoils.

      "Do Some Evil" and count on the consuming public, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid, or too afraid of technology, to notice you doesn't work across the board, Google.

      Google's 10Q disclosures should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this story closely over the past few months. We've only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... believe me.

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

      griddick@imageline2.co...       Aug 10 11:22 AM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»