In a meeting with reporters last week, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do, and also to hold us to the principles that we’ve articulated.” He said Google has been working harder to anticipate concerns and is trying to strike a balance between doing the right things for its users and dealing “with very legitimate concerns about what we are doing.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_12342433

So why is Schmidt still on Apple’s Board of Directors?

The New York Times got it right in their article: New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/companies/18antitrust.html

There is also the matter of Google CEO Eric Schmidt being on Apple’s board of directors. Seeing those two companies will be competing in several markets (e.g. Google’s Android phones vs Apple’s iPhone), isn’t that an anittrust violation?

There is often a fine line between unlawful and unethical conduct. Therefore, I believe the U.S. government should encourage business leaders of large corporations to practice good business ethics. Perhaps, all management employees should be required to take courses in business ethics and pass a test, inorder to maintain their management positions.

Gary Reback responds to comments:

Several comments have raised questions about the EU’s fine against Intel. First, while the U.S. government’s case against Microsoft involved some complicated antitrust questions about whether Microsoft could bundle its browser with its operating system, the balance of the charges leveled against Microsoft bear more than a casual similarity to what Intel is accused of.

In the Antitrust Division’s 1994 case against Microsoft, the company was accused of adopting a discount schedule — called a “per processor license” — that made it impossible for computer manufacturers to adopt the operating system of a Microsoft competitor for any portion of the manufacturer’s line without having to pay double for the Microsoft operating system still needed for the manufacturer’s primary products. Microsoft did not contest the charges and agreed to stop the practice.

But a few years later, Microsoft was accused of paying (that is, giving discounts to) computer manufacturers and Internet service providers so they would put Netscape at a disadvantage — by giving that company’s product poor placement on the desktop or by not offering it to purchasers in the first instance. This time Microsoft contested the charges and a court found against it. Microsoft contended that its practices did not harm consumers, but, again, the court found otherwise, and its decision was affirmed on appeal.

Microsoft eventually settled the case by promising, once again, not to engage in preclusive discounting practices. Intel stands accused of much the same — giving discounts to computer manufacturers on the condition they use fewer AMD chips. But while Microsoft has been found culpable by the courts, Intel merely stands accused.

We haven’t even seen the EU’s evidence yet (I expect much of it to be made public very soon), much less the result of a court’s evaluation. So, while I can understand the sentiment of some to condemn Intel more vigorously, I’d simply like to wait a bit to see how the evidence — as opposed to the allegations — actually turns out.

Several people have raised questions about Intel’s business ethics, as did Chris O’Brien in the Merc. We all want our companies to behave honestly and ethically. But ethics are sometimes a matter of personal judgment. What seems ethical to some people people is reprehensible to others, sometimes making it difficult to go after companies just for ethical lapses.

I have always believed that if we believe certain business conduct is reprehensible, we should make that conduct illegal, so companies know what to do and not do, without resorting to debates about ethics. In this case, both the EU and the U.S. have set up legal rules to prevent discounts that harm the competitive process by precluding legitimate competitors. I think we are better off focusing on the legal rules in this case, instead of relying on the vagaries of ethical judgments.

In the new antitrust climate of the Obama administration, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.

The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.

Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”

Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.

Quote from SJ Merc article:
“Intel’s behavior even seems egregious when compared to some of the worst accusations leveled against Microsoft during the days when it faced its own antitrust legal problems. Yes, Microsoft may have been heavy-handed in dealing with PC makers in requiring them to take its browser so it could suffocate Netscape. But it never paid people to not distribute Netscape Navigator.” Perhaps, that answers Jack Reed’s comment.

It’s pretty damaging stuff, especially coming from the home town newspaper! It seems to me that Intel’s reputation is severely tarnished and it will be difficult for them to re-establish their good name established by Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove.

And Intel has yet another huge battle to deal with. The Billions of dollars the company has spent nurturing a mobile WiMAX ecosystem is not paying off in revenues, let alone profits. Unfortunately, this Silicon Valley icon seems to think too much of itself, but it is not invincible.