Hi,<br>
<br>You've probably all heard about Google's threats to exit China. I have a few thoughts on it: <div><br>
1. A quick deflationary note: If I were running a general purpose search
engine with a ~33% market share (as Google does in China), facing a
competitor with a ~60+% market share (like Baidu), I'd seriously
consider exiting the market. We've now reached a point at which
dominance in general purpose search is self-reinforcing.*<br>
<br>
2. I think this WSJ quote is insightful: <br>
<br>
"The Google syndrome caps growing complaints by foreign businesses
over a deteriorating business environment.. . . Younger bureaucrats are more
nationalistic and skeptical of the value of letting in foreign
companies. . . Last year, for example, foreign executives
said bidding practices for wind energy were rigged to exclude foreign
companies."**<br>
<br>
In other words, China has an industrial policy, and is acting to ensure
that the trade secrets of firms controlling critical infrastructure are
accessible to national authorities. (The shadowy hackers are probably a cyber-analogue to the "Fifty Cent Party," a pro-CP astroturf "movement" that is for all intents and purposes a state actor.) I have urged such accessibility in the US context in
order to prevent stealth marketing and other unfair and deceptive
practices; of course, as an attorney, I have urged it be accomplished only via regular processes of administrative inspection guaranteeing full protection of relevant intellectual property. I have no doubt that the Chinese hacking has darker
purposes. As in Gonzales v. Google, this is a case where the trade
secrecy rationale for Google's resistance to authorities is just as
strong as the "user privacy" rationale. When corporate privacy (i.e., trade secrecy) aligns with user privacy, Google will fight for the latter value.<br>
<br>3. Perhaps search engines will split along national lines. Google will
cooperate with US law enforcement, but does not want to deal with
Chinese law enforcement's "information sharing" infrastructure. Its
action might be a heartening step toward restoring the
public/private distinction I discuss here: <br>
<a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/06/the-many-deaths-of-privacy.html">http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/06/the-many-deaths-of-privacy.html</a><br>
<br>
On the other hand, it could just portend further integration of state and corporate power along national lines (reminding me of Goldsmith & Wu's book Who Controls the Internet?)). <br>
<br>
4. Siva Vaidhyanathan and Michael Zimmer are doing a great job tweeting/facebooking excellent commentary.<br>
<br>
--Frank<br>
<br>
*See <a href="http://madisonian.net/2009/03/18/seven-reasons-to-doubt-competition-in-the-general-search-engine-market/">http://madisonian.net/2009/03/18/seven-reasons-to-doubt-competition-in-the-general-search-engine-market/</a>. <br>
<br>
**From <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575000772033650164.html?mod=e2tw">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575000772033650164.html?mod=e2tw</a></div>