Print

Print


Doesn't this go back to the same concept as classifying email?  It is the "content" of the email that justifies its retention...... It is the content of the ads that are the property of another organization and not Google's.  That means they are selling someone else's property.  Isn't that theft?

If Google says that this will limit their profitability, and therefore they should be able to do it... then would it not hold true that if I want to sell the Brooklyn Bridge then I can?  ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Hugh Smith
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Interesting Threat to internet searches


I saw this on the Information Week Newsletter and it seems simple 
enough, but think of the ramifications.  It seems that ARMA should;  or 
the Listserv should, speak out against such business practices.


Yahoo Limits Advertising With Competing Trademarks

> Yahoo plans to stop allowing advertisers to buy ads against searches 
> on their competitors' trademarks. But Google continues the practice, 
> and lawyers say it's undetermined whether the ads are legal.
_______________
Part of the article was as follows:

> The issue of trademarks has become increasingly fractious for search 
> engines. In January, CNG Financial Corp., an Ohio-based company that 
> owns some 1,300 Check 'n Go stores nationally, filed suit against 
> Google claiming that Google's sales of trademarked keywords harms its 
> business by helping competitors poach customers. In its financial 
> statements, Google has warned that adverse legal rulings in this area 
> could impact its revenue.
>
> While Google will prevent advertisers from using a trademarked term in 
> ad text when the trademark owner objects, it allows trademarked 
> keywords to be purchased. The issue remains far from resolved, though 
> a recent court ruling suggests Google's approach may be lawful.

If they allow one company to buy the rights to another's trademark, 
they can divert all searches for a competitor's web site to their web 
site.  Then the next step is to allow Big & Large Corp to buy the 
rights to all advertising for a given product.  For our Listserv 
understanding lets use  fold up records storage boxes.  If every search 
always diverts you to Big & Large, you are denied the value of the 
Internet. You will only be able to find info on Big & Large Boxes.  
Being able to purchase the search rights to another's product trademark 
is the first step and then you buy the right to the entire genre.  This 
subverts the open market.  The growth of Google as the dominant search 
engine promoting this process denies free market activity. This may 
drive smaller competitors out of business.  What if China buys Google 
and then only allows Chinese products to be represented.  Certainly we 
in America would adjust but small companies could be hurt.  Since this 
is an information issue it seems to be a records management issue.  (Or 
I might be off topic Big time.  This is for the List to determine.  But 
this is at least interesting. )

Isn't this in essence restraint of free speech ( or restraint of paid 
speech)?

As records managers where searching for files, words and products is a 
big part of what we do, this is an infringement on that ability.  While 
this is the first creep in this area, if one can buy the rights to 
another's name then everything else is just as easy for the large 
company to deny the market competitive activity.

I guess once we accepted "Pay per Click" this was inevitable.  At least 
Yahoo has drawn a line in the sand.


Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[log in to unmask]
(610)  756-4440    Fax (610)  756-4134
WWW.FIRELOCK.COM

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
---------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attached documents contain information that may be 
confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you 
have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply 
e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance