David Balto is an antitrust
lawyer isn't he? It'd be interesting how a lawyer could claim not to be paid by
Google and Gigaom would claim the contrary (See disclaimer in situ Apple and Microsoft’s patent troll spells
trouble for smartphone innovation):
Editor’s note: Before
publishing this article. we asked a representative for the author whether
the author had ever had a commercial relationship with Google, paid or
unpaid. The representative said no. It turns out that was untrue. The
author, in fact, has been paid by Google to write pro-Google white papers. Had
we known of that fact, we would never have published this piece. We apologize to
our readers.
Emphasis added. Note the requirement of "pendency of
this action" in the court order. The Gigaom disclaimer is without visible
supporting fact and could have no bearing on the present case or otherwise have
an innocent explanation.
Also note the possible Microsoft angle from the
list of this author's publications. I'd suggest the facts should be further
ascertained before attempting to make a mountain from a proverbial
molehill.
Chris O'Brien for the Mercury News in Google vs. Microsoft: See who's clashing behind the
scenes expands on the subject of who supports whom with what incentive and
writes specifically on Mr. Balto:
David Balto, the former Clinton
administration policy director at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, in the past
has received funding directly from Google and through the ICLE to write "white
papers" on Internet competition issues.
Balto said this work had given him a
lot of insight into Google's business and its impact and led him to conclude
independently that the antitrust arguments against the company are flawed.
"There are a lot of reasons why I feel tremendously comfortable being on
Google's side," he said.
Again, without demonstrating direct
funding nor "during the pendency of the present action". One ICLE is the
Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Michigan and doesn't list David Balto
as a contributor. I had difficulty associating any other ICLE with David
Balto.
David Balto appears to have been or is now a member of the Center for
American Progress which appears to receive ad revenue from Google AdWords and is
a non-profit corporation under whose auspices David Balto wrote Competition That Works: Why the Google Books Project Is Good for
Consumers and Its Competitors.
See Tech war:
Google vs. Microsoft wherein we find that David Balto has testified for
Google in the past, again presumably exempt as not during the pendency of the
present action. It isn't shown he was a paid witness and as an expert witness
would have been exempt from reporting in the current action.
Google offers
non-profits free Google services through Google for Non-Profits as a portion of
in kind donations of $1 Billion (including AdWords) and also gave $115
million in direct grants.
If there's a direct connection it would be nice of
someone alleging it to provide more information. All we have so far is a
hatchet job.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
