AllThingsD » Google Books

The New Science of the Birth and Death of Words

Christopher Shea — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:21:24 +0000

Can physicists produce insights about language that have eluded linguists and English professors? That possibility was put to the test this week when a team of physicists published a paper drawing on Google’s massive collection of scanned books. They claim to have identified universal laws governing the birth, life course and death of words.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

App Makes Readers' Thoughts an Open Book

Katherine Boehret — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:26:09 +0000

Even the shyest airplane passengers are hard-pressed to remain mum when a seatmate pulls out a book with a familiar cover. Now, thanks to the popularity of e-books, these once visible book covers are shrouded in the nondescript cases of Kindles, Nooks and iPads.

[ See post to watch video ]

This week, I tried Subtext, a free iPad app designed to enable and encourage conversations based on e-books—not necessarily with fellow plane passengers, but among readers within digital books themselves. A revamped version of Subtext, originally released in October, is available in Apple’s App Store Tuesday.

On the Subtext iPad app, a reader’s profile page, with her shelf of books.

Like Amazon’s Kindle already does, Subtext gives anyone who reads an e-book the ability to make notes, highlight passages and to keep private or share those notes or highlights with other users. But this app goes much further: It also lets readers post questions, polls, quizzes or even Web links that are noted in the margins of the book. Other users respond to these posts and start mini book discussions that can continue indefinitely. Subtext content can be kept private, made visible to all users or made visible only to a user’s friends. Along with comments from fellow readers, Subtext users can see comments marked in blue that are made by a book’s author or other experts.

Unfortunately, Subtext smacks of immaturity when compared with other reading apps like Amazon’s Kindle app and Barnes & Noble’s Nook app. While those work on several devices and operating systems, Subtext works only on Apple’s iPad. It only runs with books from Google Books or those in Adobe’s ePub format, and the process for getting the latter—emailing the book to oneself or downloading the file from a website to the iPad—is clumsy and not intuitive. Co-founder Rachel Thomas said Subtext is actively developing for other platforms.

Another issue is that Subtext is only as good as its users’ involvement. The more people comment and create discussions, the more interesting it will be for others. For this to happen, the app has to lure readers away from the devices and apps they’re already comfortable with, like the Kindle or Nook, or the Kindle, Nook and Apple iBooks apps on the iPad.

I got an early look at the new version of Subtext and found it more self-explanatory than its predecessor. I signed in using my Google account, though users can sign in using a Facebook account or explore the app as a guest. By signing into my Google Account, my shelves were populated with the Google e-books I already purchased. Previews of books give users a sense of what the app does.

A Discussions section neatly organizes all social interactions about books in one place.

Users can tap on any book cover to see all content and social information related to that book. Likewise, tapping on any user profile image lets you visit that person’s shelf. A Featured Shelves section suggests different categories of books like Critics Picks 2011 and 2011′s Most Social Books.

As I used Subtext for the first time, small hint windows floated onto the iPad screen at certain points to demonstrate how things worked. One encouraged me to tap and hold my finger on the screen at a favorite book passage to see options for adding notes to that passage. I tried this a few times, including while reading a line in Tina Fey’s “Bossypants” about working moms with kids. I highlighted this passage and posed a question to all Subtext users: How many kids does Tina Fey have? Someone, who I later found out was Subtext’s co-founder Andrew Goldman, answered about an hour later, saying Ms. Fey has two daughters—a 6-year-old and a 6-month-old.

The Discussions section of the app neatly organizes all social interactions in one place, so people don’t have to skip back through books to see the continued conversations surrounding a question.

I like the way Subtext subtly notifies readers that notes exist: by showing a tiny thumbnail image of the user who posted the note in the margin of a book. Tapping on that image opens the note. I commented on some existing discussions by tapping the Reply button.

I created a note for one book passage using a related Web link, and the steps for doing this were clear and understandable. I kept this visible only to myself; other times, I made notes about passages and shared them only with my friends who I could invite to use Subtext via Facebook or email.

But what’s to stop someone from posting something inaccurate or abusive? Users can flag any note as inappropriate or as a spoiler, and the note is reviewed by the company. Users can vote on others’ comments, and over time, comments with more votes will be more broadly distributed.

As of now, authors and experts have enhanced just 18 books in Subtext, though users have left thousands of notes across books. The few books enhanced by authors or experts were fun to read. Steven Levy remarked on a line in his book, “In the Plex,” that described his travels from San Francisco to Tokyo, Beijing, Bangalore and Tel Aviv: “Newsweek paid for my trip, shelling out over $10,000 for my expenses. Kind of ironic because a couple of years later, Newsweek itself sold for $1.”

Google Copyright Talks Continue With Publishers, Authors

Chad Bray — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:02:19 +0000

Google Inc. and publisher and author groups are continuing to discuss options to resolve copyright litigation over a proposed digital library of books after a federal judge earlier this year rejected a settlement in the case, lawyers for both sides said Thursday.

In March, Denny Chin, now a U.S. Circuit Judge in Manhattan, rejected a revised $125 million deal to resolve separate lawsuits over scanning books for online distribution by Google via its Google Books site. In his decision, the judge found the pact would give Google the ability to “exploit” books without the permission of copyright owners.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Microsoft to Google: Quit Whining Ya Big Baby

John Paczkowski — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:56 +0000

Microsoft may be quietly chuckling over the European Commission’s decision to look into antitrust complaints against Google, but it’s not going to take credit for it. In a post to the company Web site, Dave Heiner, Microsoft vice president and deputy general counsel, took issue with Google’s suggestion last week that two companies with ties to Microsoft are driving this thing.

“This week came news that the European Commission is investigating various aspects of Google’s conduct, including claims of retaliation, exclusivity and manipulation of search results to disadvantage rivals,” Heiner wrote. “Google’s public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere–at Microsoft. Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors….[But] ultimately what’s important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive.”

A great point, and one that makes Google’s inflammatory out-of-the-gate finger-pointing earlier this week seem a bit hysterical. And if Microsoft’s European properties did spur the EC’s preliminary investigation into Google, so what? As Heiner wryly notes, “Complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors”–“dumbass” here is, presumably, implied.

So does Microsoft (MSFT) feel Google (GOOG) is worthy of antitrust scrutiny? Well, what do you think?

“Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google,” Heiner wrote. “…Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success. Nor should firms be punished just because a particular business practice may harm a rival–competition on the merits can do that, too. That is a position that Microsoft has long espoused, and we’re sticking to it. Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly. Ultimately the competition law agencies will have to decide whether or not Google’s practices should be seen as illegal.”

Well, there you go. Obviously, the gloves are coming off here. Too bad for Google that it doesn’t take a punch very well.

DOJ on Google Book Settlement: Get Me Another Rewrite

John Paczkowski — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:05:38 +0000

The Department of Justice still isn’t sold on the Google Books settlement agreement. In a brief filed late Thursday, the DOJ said that significant legal problems remain despite the considerable changes Google, publishers and authors have made to it.

“Although the United States believes the parties have approached this effort in good faith and the amended settlement agreement is more circumscribed in its sweep than the original proposed settlement, the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement,” the DOJ said in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,” the report continues. “Under the [revised proposal], Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works–including so-called ‘orphan works’–without risk of liability.”

And then there was this:

Google’s exclusive access to millions and millions of books may well benefit Google’s existing online search business. Google already holds a relatively dominant market share in that market. That dominance may be further entrenched by its exclusive access to content through the ASA. Content that can be discovered by only one search engine offers that search engine at least some protection from competition. This outcome has not been achieved by a technological advance in search or by operation of normal market forces; rather, it is the direct product of scanning millions of books without the copyright holders’ consent.

In other words, the amended deal continues to give Google (GOOG) significant anticompetitive advantages and rewards the company for scanning books in violation of copyright protections. And while the Justice Department did not go so far as to explicitly urge rejection of the deal, it recommended that parties to the settlement make further changes before the Feb. 18 fairness hearing at which it is to be reviewed.

Another setback for Google, or as Gary Reback–a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer who represents Microsoft (MSFT) and the Open Book Alliance, a coalition opposed to the settlement–said, the filing is a “profound embarrassment–bordering on an outright humiliation” for the search company.

Google Seeks a Deal on China Book Scans

Loretta Chao — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:00:11 +0000

Google Inc. (GOOG) sought to calm anger in China over its book-scanning project, saying it aims to work out a new agreement with Chinese writers for the rights to publish their books in its digital library.

In a letter to the Chinese Writers Association, Erik Hartmann, head of Google Books in Asia, acknowledged that the company’s communication with Chinese writers was “not good enough” and said Google is negotiating with the China Written Works Copyright Society to create a new plan for authors and publishers to participate in Google Books.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Will Nexus One Be a Hit? Maybe. But Not Every Google Launch Lands Well.

Drake Martinet — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:05:38 +0000

Google has finally rolled out a slick-looking mobile phone called the Nexus One–not just a phone but a superphone!

But the search giant hasn’t confined its ambitions to mere hardware and software design. It also wants to reinvent the way the mobile business works.

Heady stuff, but then, Google (GOOG) has already reinvented some industries (ask the old search engines) and is helping reorder others (ask any newspaper publisher).

The flip side: While Google does launch lots of stuff, many of its products are now on the shelf with other dusty tech curios.

Below are a few of the choicest nuggets in our newest slideshow. Some are first-place finishers, while others had to be killed off and turned into mulch for Google’s organic garden.

Google Books Settlement Proceedings to Drag on Until Mid-February

John Paczkowski — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:53:07 +0000

The latest revision of the Google Books settlement has been granted preliminary approval by a New York district judge, though it will be some time before approval is finalized–if it is finalized. Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York said Thursday that he will hold a hearing Feb. 18 on the new agreement, which will restore access to millions of out-of-print books, but may also one day give the company a monopoly on the largest digital library in the world.

Filed last Friday, the latest version of the settlement is more limited in scope, but has still drawn the ire of critics, who claim it remains rife with “anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

Chin evidently disagrees, and Google (GOOG) is obviously quite pleased that he has done so. “The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form,” the company said in a statement.

“We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court,” Google continues, “and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web.”

In a statement of its own, the Open Books Alliance, one of the settlement’s harshest critics, warned Google not to get too, too hopeful. “Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google’s copyright infringement lawsuit,” the group said.

“This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0,” the Alliance warned. “The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.”

Google's Chrome OS: "It Just Works"

John Paczkowski — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:51:03 +0000

Speaking at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans this past July, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said of Google’s forthcoming Chrome OS, “Who knows what this thing is?”

Today, he found out. The operating system, a direct challenge to Microsoft Windows, was on display at a media gathering at the Google HQ this morning.

Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Matthew Papakipos, engineering director for Google Chrome OS, presided over the event, which the company described as a “technical announcement.”

That meant that Google (GOOG) was not releasing a beta of the operating system this week, as had been rumored.

That said, it was an overview of Chrome, as well as Google’s plans for its launch in 2010, so let the Chrome OS liveblogging begin:

There will be no beta today. Pichai says Google is still a year away from an official launch. However, the company is making the code available today.
Pichai says that a year after launch, the Chrome browser has some 40 millions users. He boasts about the browser’s speed, noting that it handles Javascript 39 times faster than Microsoft’s (MSFT) Internet Explorer. There will be three more big Chrome announcements sometime in the future: Chrome for Mac, Chrome for Linux and the debut of Chrome Extensions.
Google’s goal is to ensure that Web applications function as well as desktop apps. Pichai says that the company is figuring out a way for Web apps to safely take advantage of the operating system in the way desktop apps do. A few examples: Graphics, video/audio applications, real-time communication, notification and local storage.

“By 2010 we expect to have all these things built into Chrome,” Pichai adds.
The advent of Chrome coincides with a perfect storm of converging trends, Pichai says, noting the tremendous popularity of netbooks during the recession, the growing acceptance of cloud apps and the rapid innovation in mobile devices. Smartphones are becoming more like laptops, Pichai adds, and laptops are becoming more like smartphones. Is there a better level of computing available for these devices?

There is, according to Pichai, and Google believes it is Chrome OS.
Among Chrome OS’s advantages, Pichai says: Speed, simplicity and security. Every application will be a Web application. There will be no desktop apps. Chrome OS is essentially a browser with a few modifications. All data in the Chrome OS resides in the cloud. Pichai: “We want all of personal computing to work that way….If I lose my Chrome machine, I should be able to go out, buy a new [one] and re-create my previous computing experience easily.”

Chrome OS will run completely inside the browser security model, he adds, noting that security is one of Google’s top priorities along with speed. “Turning on a PC should be like turning on your TV,” he says.
Chrome OS is very similar in appearance to the Chrome browser. “Chrome OS is Chrome,” says Pichai. Google made it look like a browser, because the browser is familiar.
And indeed, Chrome OS does look quite a bit like a browser. Multiple apps load into tabs, for example. It also features “Panels,” which Pichai describes as persistent lightweight windows. “All Chrome data resides in the cloud. Anything you put in the machine is immediately available to you anywhere.”
As netbooks become more advanced and battery life improves, they will evolve into entertainment devices, says Pichai, who notes that via Google Books, a netbook can become an e-reader, and, through YouTube, a video device.
A quick demo of the user interface, which seems very simple and intuitive. “It just works,” says Pichai in an unintentional nod to Apple (AAPL).

An interesting remark: Anyone who writes an app for the Web has written an app for Chrome, says Pichai, joking that Microsoft is already developing for it.
Speed, simplicity and security, says Pichai. We’re trying to make the computing experience delightful.

With that, Pichai hands the stage over to Engineering Director Matt Papakipos.

Papakipos, too, offers the “we want to make computing delightful” sound byte and notes once again that turning on the PC should be like turning on the TV.
Chrome OS eliminates the bootloader, auto-launching the browser. The OS also auto-updates itself, making sure that it’s always current with security patches, etc. Everything from the firmware to the kernel is secured with a cryptographic signature to ensure a secure boot. In the event malware is detected, the system repairs itself automatically.
The basic application security protocol for current operating systems allows apps the same privileges as the user. This presents obvious security issues. Whenever you install a new app, you’re taking a risk, says Papakipos.

But Web applications like those that Chrome OS use, are different. They are Web apps, so they don’t have system-level privileges. Additionally, all apps run in secured sandboxes that are separate from one other and from the OS. Finally, all apps must be signed and verified before each use.
In terms of file systems, Chrome’s is locked down. It’s a read-only root-file system, obviously quite different from other operating systems. All user data are encrypted and synched to the cloud. Essentially, Google uses the PC for caching. Again, if you should lose your machine, you buy a new one, fire it up and it synchs with the cloud, restoring your previous computing experience.
How will Google bring Chrome OS to market? The company is working with vendors to specify reference hardware. You cannot download and install Chrome on just any device, you will have to purchase a Chrome device. Google is looking at a launch window of late 2010, before the holidays.
Google sounds very concerned about the end-user Chrome OS experience. Pichai says the company wants to ensure that the displays, keyboard, etc., on the netbooks that run Chrome are robust and easy to use.
Pichai wraps things up, but before the Q&A, we’re shown a short explanatory video. “The first thing I want to do when I fire up my computer is browse the Internet….If there isn’t any Internet, I might not even use my computer….What if when you pressed on, your PC turned on, what if your operating system was more like a Web browser…what if it was a browser?…Chrome OS is a totally rethought computer that lets you focus on the Internet, which is what most of use our computers for these days anyway.”

Q&A

At this point, Pichai opens the event to questions:

If you’re specifying hardware components, do you must have an idea of what they’ll cost?

A: We expect Chrome netbooks to be in the price range of what people have come to expect….We are not specifying a price target. Price will be determined at the OEM level.

Will the APIs support W3C standards?

A: We’re working very closely with the W3C to standardize as much as we can….In general, we want to see everything standardized across multiple browsers.

Will there be an application store?

A: The Web offers hundreds of millions of applications. Our job is to make people aware of them.

What about desktop applications that are not available on the Web?

A: We expect most of our users to have a second machine at home….Chrome OS is about a delightful experience on the Web….If you’re a lawyer spending your entire day on contracts, etc., this is not the machine for you.

Will you support Microsoft Silverlight?

A: In the case of certain selection plug-ins, we are working to integrate them. No comment beyond that.

Since Chrome is open source, could people build their own variations?

A: Yes. We expect people will do many interesting things with it.

Do you see Chrome running on laptops or desktops?

A: We’re initially focused on netbook-like form factors–clamshells, etc. That said, the OS is being developed to work on other devices.

Is there any level of offline access? What happens when I’m on a plane and don’t want to pay for Wi-Fi?

A: Chrome devices are primarily intended to be Internet-connected. That said, it will have some caching abilities so, for example, you could play a game offline.

Virtualization?

A: Yes. You could run Chrome today on a virtual machine.

Are you working with outfits like Adobe to, say, build a Web-friendly version of Photoshop?

A: We’re very excited by things like Photoshop on the Web and we’re working hard to make that possible.

Will Android apps work on Chrome? Are there plans for third-party apps?

A: [Pichai dodges this one.] If it’s a Web app, it will work on Chrome. The Web works very, very well for our purposes.

Will Chrome work on both X86 and ARM?

A: Yes.

Is there a direct business model for Chrome OS or is this another variation of the-more-people-that-use-the-Web-the-better-for-Google?

A: We are working with partners. No plans for advertising. That said, Pichai notes again that anything that runs on the Web will run on Chrome. And of course, AdWords does, indeed, run on the Web.

[Sergey Brin joins the Q&A]

Do you want Android Apps to run on Chrome?

A: We are focused on creating the use case in which everything is a Web application, but hopefully we can do more in the future.

How does Chrome handle peripherals? Can it print?

A: Most keyboards, cameras, phones, etc., will work. In terms of printing…yes, Chrome OS will print and we’re working hard to make that possible.

What is Chrome’s strategic position for Google?

A: [Brin]: Call us dumb businessmen, but we really focus on user needs rather than focus on business strategies. We believe that the Web platform is a much simpler way of computing for individuals to use, and that’s a very important need in the market right now. That’s what we’re trying to fulfill.

Google's Mission: To Digitize the World's Books and Make Them Universally Monetizable by Google

John Paczkowski — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:40:47 +0000

Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have submitted a new version of their digital book settlement, and while it makes concessions to the Department of Justice and others who have raised concerns about how it may violate antitrust laws, the proposal doesn’t seem to have appeased all of its opponents. Among the settlement’s changes:

Orphan works–books whose copyright holders are unknown–will be overseen by an independent trustee who will administer their licensing, not by Google.
Books published outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia will be excluded from the settlement.

Those are substantive alterations, but they clearly haven’t placated critics who accuse Google (GOOG) of attempting an “end-run around copyright law as we know it.”

The Open Book Alliance–a coalition whose members include the Internet Archive, Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO)–has blasted the revision twice already, decrying it as “a sleight of hand” intended to distract people from Google’s continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution.

“The proposed changes fail to address this deal’s fundamental flaws,” Open Book Alliance Co-Chair Gary Reback said in a vitriolic statement. “Despite Google’s effort to spin this deal, it does nothing to promote competition nor does it reform Google’s exclusive access and monopoly hold on this digital database of books. Their proposed ‘unclaimed works fiduciary’ will have zero authority to promote competition or expand access. It is a cynical diversion away from the parties’ continued reliance on the discredited argument that competitors can obtain access through the very means Google did–getting sued for copyright infringement and abusing the class action process. This deal remains rife with anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

Google Blows Book Search Deal Deadline

John Paczkowski — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:36:07 +0000

Google’s five-year-old copyright feud with the publishing industry will drag on a few days more now that the deadline for submitting a revised settlement proposal has been pushed back once again. Google (GOOG) and attorneys representing the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers were supposed to file the document today, but instead asked the judge overseeing the matter to give them until the end of the week.

“The parties have been in discussions with the Department of Justice both prior to and since the October 7 status conference,” attorney Michael Boni explained in a letter requesting the extension. “We met with the Department as recently as this past Friday, November 6. In light of the above, the parties respectfully request this additional time to file the motion.”

It would seem, then, that the latest version of the settlement did not adequately address the DOJ’s concerns that the agreement could violate antitrust law by giving Google “de facto exclusive rights for the digital distribution of orphan works.” Presumably if it had, it would have been filed on time.

Almost Famous: Brizzly's Chris Wetherell

Voices — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:05:01 +0000

A new feature wherein All Things Digital looks at up-and-coming and innovative start-ups you should know about.

This week: A video visit with, some questions for and a few pertinent stats about Chris Wetherell and his creation, Brizzly, a Web-based social media reader, one of many in the hot status update arena.

Who: Chris Wetherell

What: VP of Technology, Thing Labs, creator of Brizzly.

Why: Brizzly is a Web-based social media software client, for microblogging sites like Twitter or Facebook, expands attachments automatically and allows users to describe and define the trending topics for all its users to see. It’s in invite-only beta.

Where: @cw (Twitter); massless.org (Wetherell’s personal blog); San Francisco (HQ for Thing Labs and Brizzly)

Who else: TweetDeck, Seesmic, TwitIQ

Five Stats You Won’t Find in his Facebook Profile

Worst Job: Assembly line at Fujitsu, making rack servers

Has a Geek Crush on: Mihai Parparita, Google developer in Boston

Gadget of the Moment: Roku’s digital video box. “It’s got Netflix, You Tube and TV. Damn.”

Wishes There Was an App for: The legal arena. “They need to, like, use a computer.”

Fails at: Anything related to email

Bio in 140 Characters

From Beaverton, Ore. Dropped out of Berkeley. Got hungry as an indie rock drummer. @Google Reader. Left Google, invented Brizzly.

The Five Questions

Why should I care about Brizzly?

It depends on what you’re looking for. If one of the things that interests you is how a large community is experiencing life–I mean really interested in the community and not just the idea of your friends–then Brizzly does that a little more easily than other things. [Brizzly's assets are] no small difference for those who are interested in it.

Why are all Twitter-related logos, including yours, so darn cute?

Yeah, we’re a little cheeky, right? I think it’s probably just because of a pendulum swing. I mean, the last thing [Thing Labs' CEO Jason Shellen] and I worked on was the exact opposite. Google Reader is not cuddly. It’s friendly, but cuddly it isn’t. The other thing is, we were hoping to try what strong branding is like–in terms of anthropomorphic animals. The bear design [was drawn by] both Jason and [Twitter Co-founder] Biz Stone.

What can we expect from Thing Labs and Brizzly three months out?

We will have at least three richer sets of experiences, some of which include entirely different products all connected through our letsbetrends.com API.

Every geek has a memory where they saw something new and had to say to themselves, “Dang, I love living in the future.” What’s yours?

One big one for me was at Google–it was my first day and someone says, “Hey, have they taken you to see the robots yet?” I was like, “Hahaha… No.” They took me to this building where there was a room filled with these Rube Goldbergesque mechanical devices. Large cages with metal bars and wires, culminating in this ball in the center. This girl climbed into the thing. She put her feet in these stirrups and sat in this weird chair, and then this book slides out. The girl started tapping her feet on this base drum pedal and doing this thing with her hands, and then the book slides away [they were scanning the books]. I was like, “What is this?” and they said, “Well, this is Ocean [the internal name for Google Books].” What struck me was the scale. It was clear to me that they were going to scan ridiculous amounts of information very, very quickly, and I realized: Whoa, THIS is very different.”

Are you really competitive with rivals?

I just don’t have that kind of fight in me. I mean, I want to kick my own ass. I know there are lots of guys out there who can totally drop the names of someone they want to just crush. I just don’t have it. I get more frustrated with me, more than anyone else. I’m like Jim Carrey in “Liar Liar”: “I’m kicking my ass.”

The In Living Color Interview

[ See post to watch video ]

People's Daily Site Accuses Google of "Malicious Revenge"

Sky Canaves — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:04:10 +0000

Google (GOOG) has seen its fair share of troubles in China, from having its flagship search engine blocked to being scolded for peddling pornography. Last week, the Chinese Written Works Copyright Society accused the company of infringing the rights of Chinese authors through its Google Books project.

And the drama continues. Now, the Web site of the People’s Daily is accusing Google of “malicious revenge” after Google searches for the People’s Daily Online’s books section turned up warnings that read: “This site may contain malicious software that could harm your computer.”

An article posted on the People’s Daily books page, from the Beijing Times (in Chinese), quoted an official with the People’s Daily site as saying he had received numerous calls from readers who said they were unable to access the site through Google. The unnamed official said there was no harmful software on the site, and that he believed the block was due to the site’s reporting of the Google Books story. The site began featuring stories on the rights-infringement issue on Oct. 21, and even created a special page on the subject. “Starting on the 21st [we] were maliciously blocked,” the official said, according to the report.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter

Juliet Ye — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:25:48 +0000

Google’s (GOOG) troubles in China seem to have taken a new turn as a result of the company’s plan to create a vast digital library of books.

The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).

CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

France to Google Books Deal: Go Away or I Shall Taunt You a Second Time

John Paczkowski — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:30:16 +0000

Google claims that its Book Search settlement will “bring back to life millions of lost books in a way that serves the interest of all.” And if that truly is its goal, the company is going to have to put its own Brobdingnagian self interests second to those of others–if only for a little while.

To wit, Google’s announcement Monday of a number of concessions to the European Union, which seems a bit dubious of the whole thing. In a letter to several publisher associations in Europe, the company invited two non-U.S. representatives to join the board that will oversee the book rights registry that is to distribute royalties from digital book sales under terms proposed by the settlement. The company also promised to seek their permission before digitally publishing European works still protected by copyrights.

“Books that are commercially available in Europe will be treated as commercially available under the Settlement,” Google (GOOG) explained. “Such books can only be displayed to US users if expressly authorised by rights holders.”

Quite a concession, given Google’s plans to create a so-called “last library,” but clearly necessary with opposition to the deal abroad so pronounced. Already, Germany has filed an objection to it, saying the agreement would “irrevocably alter the landscape of international copyright law.” And now France is about to do the same.

“Google will have a monopoly digitalising European orphan works without permission,” Nicolas Georges, director for books and libraries at the French Culture Ministry, told Reuters. “Google has the power to determine which work will be in its database or not. For example, some works that are not commercial may be removed by Google.”

Seems Google’s effort to establish a de facto worldwide copyright regime isn’t going to be quite as easy as the company had hoped.

Ganging Up on Google

John Paczkowski — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:00:37 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Hell of a Way to Get Out of Your AT&T Contract, Varney…

John Paczkowski — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:15:11 +0000

Earlier this year Christine Varney, the Justice Department’s new antitrust chief, said she planned to return the Department to a policy that led to landmark antitrust suits like the one against Microsoft (MSFT) in the ’90s. And she delivered on that promise in short order.

Since Varney’s confirmation in late April, the Department of Justice has seen a sort of Trustbuster renaissance. The DOJ has begun inquiring into potentially anticompetitive recruiting practices in Silicon Valley. It opened an investigation into the Google Books (GOOG) settlement. And now, the Department is scrutinizing cellphone exclusivity deals like the lucrative one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T). Sources close to the DOJ tell The Wall Street Journal that the agency is probing such deals to see if they adversely restrict consumer choice or hamper competition.

The inquiry, which is in its very early stages, follows recent calls for the Federal Communications Commission to open a similar investigation, and it remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of it. For while exclusivity deals may undermine consumers, there’s little doubt that they benefit them as well. After all, AT&T’s iPhone deal with Apple scared the hell out the entire industry, forcing innovations in handsets and networks alike. Were it not for that deal, we might not be seeing the network improvements now occurring–the deployment of high-speed downlink packet access and long-term evolution, or LTE, networks, for example. And we almost certainly wouldn’t have devices like the Palm (PALM) Pre and the BlackBerry Storm.

Hell of a Way to Get Out of Your AT&T Contract, Varney…

John Paczkowski — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:15:11 +0000

DOJ Confirms Antitrust Investigation Into Google Book Settlement

John Paczkowski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:41:36 +0000

Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View…

The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online.

“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”

The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works–copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the “fairness hearing” that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away. Clearly, Google’s recent public relations offensive claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.

Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:

“The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.

It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.”

2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter –

A Google Book Search for "Antitrust Law" Ought to Come in Handy Here…

John Paczkowski — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:27:46 +0000

Google’s gone and run afoul of the Department of Justice again. Its interest piqued by the growing outcry over the company’s proposed book-search settlement with authors and publishers, the agency has opened an inquiry.

Sources briefed on the matter say DOJ attorneys have contacted Google (GOOG) as well as the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild about the antitrust implications of the agreement. Presumably at issue here are concerns over the settlement’s opt-out terms–authors and publishers who don’t opt out have effectively opted in–and the fate of orphan works, books still in copyright but whose copyright owners are unknown.

Orphan works number in the millions and the fear is that this settlement gives Google a powerful blanket license for them. As Pamela Samuelson, director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, recently noted:

An estimated 70 per cent of the books in the Book Search repository are in-copyright, but out of print. Most of them are, for all practical purposes, “orphan works,” that is, works for which it is virtually impossible to locate the appropriate rights holders to ask for permission to digitize them….The proposed settlement agreement would give Google a monopoly on the largest digital library of books in the world….Google will also be the only service lawfully able to sell orphan books and monetize them through subscriptions….Virtually the only way that Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo!, or the Open Content Alliance could get a comparably broad license as the settlement would give Google would be by starting its own project to scan books. The scanner might then be sued for copyright infringement, as Google was. It would be very costly and very risky to litigate a fair use claim to final judgment given how high copyright damages can be (up to $150,000 per infringed work). Chances are also slim that the plaintiffs in such a lawsuit would be willing or able to settle on equivalent or even similar terms.

Samuelson concludes that the Book Search agreement as written is essentially a major restructuring of the book industry and an anticompetitive one at that. If that is indeed the case–and Google maintains that it is not–it’s worrisome indeed. Certainly, it’s reason enough for the DOJ to give the agreement a good once-over.

A Google Book Search for "Antitrust Law" Ought to Come in Handy Here…

John Paczkowski — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:27:46 +0000

An estimated 70 per cent of the books in the Book Search repository are in-copyright, but out of print. Most of them are, for all practical purposes, “orphan works,” that is, works for which it is virtually impossible to locate the appropriate rights holders to ask for permission to digitize them….The proposed settlement agreement would give Google a monopoly on the largest digital library of books in the world….Google will also be the only service lawfully able to sell orphan books and monetize them through subscriptions….Virtually the only way that Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo!, or the Open Content Alliance could get a comparably broad license as the settlement would give Google would be by starting its own project to scan books. The scanner might then be sued for copyright infringement, as Google was. It would be very costly and very risky to litigate a fair use claim to final judgment given how high copyright damages can be (up to $150,000 per infringed work). Chances are also slim that the plaintiffs in such a lawsuit would be willing or able to settle on equivalent or even similar terms.