Herald Editorial: Google Books might be a monoply, but it’s a good one

Google’s full-throttle pursuit of cyber-innovation has made their rise awesome to watch.  Their search engine isn’t the half of what they’ve accomplished. More so than competitors, Google’s eye for improvement has been far-reaching, and they have used that circumspection to pounce on new ideas before others, thus gaining an advantage so substantial that some worry it constitutes monopoly.

Many applications are exclusive to Google. Google Earth and Google Street View are, more or less, one of a kind –“more or less” here meaning that, while other companies are free to hedge interests in those technologies, their success seems unlikely given Google’s head start.

But not until recently has Google’s firm grip on cutting-edge Web technology been called a monopoly. The accusation was the backlash from Google’s controversial efforts to digitally publicize the world’s collection of books. The controversy surrounding Google Books consists of two primary complaints – one that Google is defying a bookshelf of copyright laws and the other that Google will have a monopoly in this new market.

Amazon and Microsoft – under the guise of a “coalition” called Open Book Alliance – have been loudest in criticizing Google’s exclusive control of online books. In particular, they discourage U.S. courts from allowing Google and publishing companies to reach a settlement that would permit Google to circumvent most of their copyright problems.

The Open Book Alliance argues that Google’s access to the online publication of books would be too exclusive to allow for competition, and that means that Google Books is a monopoly.

The premise of the argument that Google would monopolize the online library sector is convincing. Google has scanned into their database the full text of over 10 million obscure texts. Their head start does not directly prevent rivals from entering the market, but Google’s advantage is so stark as to prevent other companies from entering the market, for knowledge that no profit is possible.

Indeed, all indications suggest that Google’s online library, Google Books, would have a monopoly.  However, Google’s monopoly would be the result of their own ingenuity – settling copyright disputes does not grant Google any exclusive access, but rather grants Google permission to bring its vision of a global library to fruition.

On what grounds should we feel compelled to prevent this from happening? Monopolies are prohibited by law because of their deleterious effects on markets, with particular focus on the protection of consumers’ interests. Those laws exist for fear that companies, if permitted exclusive control of a market, will commit dastardly acts of corporatism – perhaps gouging prices at the consumer-level or neglecting their products’ quality and the satisfaction of their consumers. Stuff like that.

In contrast to all that, Google’s intentions in creating an online library – a library, by the way, that would grant users access to ancient texts from which Google is unlikely to generate any significant profit – do not appear to be nefarious. Moreover, Google’s track record when it comes to consumer satisfaction is pristine for a company of its size. There is no reason to think that consumers would suffer from Google’s endeavors.

Nor would a lack of competition in that market stagnate innovation. Google’s ambitions are, by definition, entirely unprecedented. So the claim that Google’s control of this market – a new market, pay mind, meaning the market is currently in the process of being innovated – would cause the nerds at Google to kick back and get lazy all of a sudden doesn’t hold water.

So is Google a monopoly? Perhaps it is, technically, but not to the detriment of consumers. Laws prohibiting monopolies are not designed to protect rival companies that failed to innovate they are designed to protect us — the American people.

In any case, it is clear that consumers would benefit from the success of Google Books. Google’s legal problems resulting from all the copyright laws they so casually ignored is an impossibly vexed series of some really involved legal gymnastics, and is thus notwithstanding except that we hope Google sorts it out, soon, so it can bring its plans of an online super-library into being.

Google Books – an online database of every book ever – is an astounding ambition that could change the world.  Centuries-old texts, stored in, say, Albania would be shared with the planet. Is that not good?

In attacking Google through its claims that Google will grow into a monopoly, Amazon and Microsoft pretend to have the best interests of consumers and free markets at heart. Clearly, that is not so, for Google is offering to its consumers a product that its competitors are unable to offer. So let’s call “the coalition’s” objections what they really are – a jealously driven attempt to stop something they’re upset they didn’t think about.

Short URL: http://www.westernherald.com/?p=14915

Posted by heraldstaff on Feb 17 2010. Filed under Editorial, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

http://HeraldStaff