As I already mentioned, I don't think that Google is an illegal monopoly, and I rather like the company, like practically all the commenters here. But suppose there just isn't another way to make a good search engine except the way google do, and suppose (I don't know whether it's true) that the search method is patented. Does the fact that google founders were clever enough to come up with their search method give them an unlimited control of it? What would you say if it were an AIDS vaccine?
The reason I decided to mention my point was that all the comments were so pro-google that I wanted to note that although they are currently doing good does not mean we should not consider what would happen if they turned evil.
I totally agree with what you said - Google is an excellent company, succeed only because they have superior technology, and play fairly (oh, and don't charge money from their users:-) ) . This is what makes the dilemma difficult - should we accept the fact that only one (wonderful) company should have control of such vital tool? Of course Google is not the biggest monopoly around, so it's really hypothetical, but I would rather live in a world that has several excellent search engines and not just one.
It is obvious google justly won the lawsuit, but the question remains whether it is proper that one search engine should accumulate so much power. Suppose one day google is sold to Microsoft. Will you then start using another search engine? I currently don't know of another engine which even gets near google's quality. What should we do then? Wait until the patent on PageRank expires? Or perhaps we should put our faith on the google owners never to do such a thing?
Slashdot Mirror
As I already mentioned, I don't think that Google is an illegal monopoly, and I rather like the company, like practically all the commenters here. But suppose there just isn't another way to make a good search engine except the way google do, and suppose (I don't know whether it's true) that the search method is patented. Does the fact that google founders were clever enough to come up with their search method give them an unlimited control of it? What would you say if it were an AIDS vaccine? The reason I decided to mention my point was that all the comments were so pro-google that I wanted to note that although they are currently doing good does not mean we should not consider what would happen if they turned evil.
I totally agree with what you said - Google is an excellent company, succeed only because they have superior technology, and play fairly (oh, and don't charge money from their users :-) ) . This is what makes the dilemma difficult - should we accept the fact that only one (wonderful) company should have control of such vital tool? Of course Google is not the biggest monopoly around, so it's really hypothetical, but I would rather live in a world that has several excellent search engines and not just one.
It is obvious google justly won the lawsuit, but the question remains whether it is proper that one search engine should accumulate so much power. Suppose one day google is sold to Microsoft. Will you then start using another search engine? I currently don't know of another engine which even gets near google's quality. What should we do then? Wait until the patent on PageRank expires? Or perhaps we should put our faith on the google owners never to do such a thing?