I just read a really interesting article by Daniel Lyons, Newsweek’s tech editor, “They Might be a Little Evil: Google Faces Antitrust Scrutiny”. In it Lyons explains how Google’s less-than-transparent system for bidding on paid keywords may be drawing ire from trustbusters.

As I’ve blogged here before, TradeKing’s unofficial motto “Be Good” is inspired by Google’s motto “Don’t be evil”. We think there’s a crucial difference between avoiding evil and actively seeking to do good as a company, and we believe it’s very possible to live as a successful profit-seeking venture and stick to that high standard.

To make good on that promise, though, you have to commit to transparency in a way that many companies are not prepared to. Customers aren’t stupid; they won’t just trust what you say you’re all about. They build trust by seeing how you act in the world, and trust and transparency go hand-in-hand.

Now, I use Google as much as the next guy, and I think it’s an amazing tool. Even how it presents paid keyword search results seems fairly ethical to me as an end user. What’s interesting to note in the article is not that anyone is convinced that Google is doing wrong, it’s just that nobody really knows. When a corporate entity dwarfs its competition as Google has, and there’s zero visibility into their methods, it’s not unreasonable for regulators to take a closer look.

I realize Google has a financial interest in protecting the specifics of its methods, but there’s probably a way trustbusters could satisfy themselves as to the fairness of Google’s practices, yet keep those competitive details to themselves.  It’ll be interesting, though, to see how they walk that extremely fine line.

It’s also interesting to consider how this will affect Google’s stock in the current market environment. Intel just got slapped with a huge $1.45B anti-trust fine from the European Union, and the Obama administration wants to toughen up on anti-trust regulations. The Department of Justice seems to be gunning for Google on other fronts, too: see this WSJ blog post on a probe into Google’s foray into book publishing online.

What’s your take: is it fair to make Google explain itself, or would that irreparably harm their competitive edge? Do you think it’s likely Google IS engaged in evil -- or not? And how can corporations best live up to a promise of decency and transparency?

[image: logo from Newsweek’s website]
----------------------------------------------------
Learn new trading strategies from the Options Guy, or hone your skills at TradeKing All-Stars. You can also follow us on Twitter.

TradeKing provides self-directed investors with discount brokerage services, and does not make recommendations or offer investment, financial, legal or tax advice.

(c) TradeKing, Member FINRA, ISE and SIPC. http://www.tradeking.com

Add to that now there is rumors flying around that the mighty Googster is in fear of Microsoft's Bing search engine and has devoted a whole team of engineers to study it. 

It doesn't matter if there are "trustbusters" that get special-insider-access to Google's algorithms or business methods, because regardless, someone is always going to see right-wing conspiracy and profit-grabbing greed no matter what a company does, or how transparent it becomes.  Why should Google even bother?

There are plenty of services available which can help an advertiser detect click-fraud and to help manage their Adwords bids.  What else should Google do exactly?  How transparent do you suggest they become?

Also, to imply "Do No Evil" means that Google doesn't "Do Good" is a bit disingenuine and puffing of the TK brand.  In fact, Google is quite active in many GoodThings and puts their money where their mouth is.  Google is on the forefront, for example, of funding and pioneering novel "green" energy solutions that actual scale and work.  They regularly contribute to many outstanding and respected non-profits changing the world.  And, they grant a number of hours for each employee to work on side projects, many of which directly benefit the community and world at large without any cost to it.

I mean no disrespect -- I actually like TradeKing quite a bit so far -- but what exactly has TK done like this?  All I've seen is the annoying "advancing security for traders" javascript keyboard used for logging in.  Forums and blogging are nothing new.

Disclaimer:  I neither work for Google, nor hold an interest in their stock.

All I see this is another excuse for Steve Ballmer to keep throwing office chairs around.  The only time I would invoke anti-trust litigation against Google is if they bought out another major search provider like Yahoo.

Pauly B, you're reminding me that I still need to try both MSFT's Bing and that search engine Cuil, started awhile back to great media fanfare by some ex-Googlers. As the Internet keeps getting huger, the percentage of crap content necessarily expands, so a leaner, meaner search engine would definitely help us do less searching and more finding.

Buffett, you make a fair case about Google's doing-good points - in fact, I'm planning a post this week about the alternative energy sector, in which I planned on mentioning this amazing Google story I found. Google’s green energy czar just told Reuters they’re close to paying the same price for energy from renewable sources as they would if that energy came from coal. Now that's an amazing contribution to society, well beyond the scope of what you'd expect from a search engine co. Check out the story here: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-close-to-getting-renewable-energy-for-less-than-coal-2009-6

TradeKing is still small; we don't have a lot of extra resources yet to devote to the causes we'd like to support, like better financial education for everyone in this country. For now we try to right some wrongs we see too often in our own industry: lackluster customer service, too-casual online security, cheerleaderish long-market hype even when stocks are tanking, senior management that hides from the critiques of its clients or prospects. We hope those baby steps matter in the long run.