Thread: Google's top execs refuse to testify at Senate hearing

Senators Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and Michael Lee, R-Utah, won't take 'no' as an acceptable answer from Google's Eric Schmidt and Larry Page.
Google's top executives have flatly refused to appear at a hearing by the Senate's antitrust subcommittee about business practices in the search industry, says Lee.
Instead, the search giant has assigned Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond to show up. The hearing is slated for later this summer, before the Senate's August recess.
STORY: Google execs invited to attend antitrust hearings
The executives' refusal is not sitting well with the esteemed senators. Kohl and Lee have sent a letter to Schmidt and Page formally asking one of them to appear in person to supply testimony and answer their questions.
"Google is the pre-eminent provider of Internet search, and a hearing on this important topic would be incomplete without the direct perspective and views from one of Google's top two executives," the letter states. "We strongly prefer to have one of you as the witness representing Google at the hearing, which will address fundamental questions of business operations rather merely legal issues."
Lee - the ranking member of the Senate's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights - was miffed enough to issue a separate statement of his own.
"I'm very disappointed in Google's response to the request to have Larry Page or Eric Schmidt testify at our subcommittee hearing," says Lee. "I'm committed to work with Senator Kohl and others on the committee to ensure we have the opportunity to investigate these issues thoroughly and receive adequate responses from Google."

Google's top execs refuse to testify at Senate hearing - USATODAY.com

Why are they refusing to testify at the Senat hearing?

Google investors fear long battle against Feds

Larry Page should put in a call to Bill Gates.
Microsoft Corp's famous founder may know better than anyone else what the Google Inc chief executive would face if he engages in a protracted legal battle against U.S. antitrust regulators.
Google said on Friday that the Federal Trade Commission has started a formal investigation into its business, raising concerns among investors about a lengthy, distracting probe and potential legal action.
Microsoft suffered that fate in its two-decade fight with the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys over charges that it abused its monopoly in operating systems to crush competition in other areas.
After a high-profile trial, Microsoft finally settled the matter in 2002, and only last month emerged from government oversight.
"Bill Gates felt like he was being punished for being successful, and he never really recovered from the antitrust trial," said Michael Cusumano, Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, who was involved in the trial. "Microsoft has suffered as a result. They're not as aggressive. They definitely lost their edge."
Whether Google's Page will handle the review of his company more dispassionately than Gates remains to be seen. The 38-year-old son of academics is known for a stubborn streak, championing ambitious technology and products whose near-term financial payoffs are not always clear.
Page, along with Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, have resisted calls to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust subcommittee hearing on competition in the Internet search industry.

Google investors fear long battle against Feds | Reuters

and

Google Stock below $500. Time to buy?
Google stock looks almost ridiculously cheap -- The Buzz - Jun. 17, 2011

If the Google founders are selling their shares, perhaps it is not the time to buy

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Why are they refusing to testify at the Senat hearing?

They might just be annoyed. I know I would be..

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Why are they refusing to testify at the Senate hearing?

Hi,

I would not want to would you?

Most Senate hearing are a witch hunt to begin with. These idiotic committees at one time called Humphrey Bogart, Lucy Ball, James Cagney, and Frederic March, Communist!

Sami

Originally Posted by Sami4u

Hi,

I would not want to would you?

Most Senate hearing are a witch hunt to begin with. These idiotic committees at one time called Humphrey Bogart, Lucy Ball, James Cagney, and Frederic March, Communist!

Sami

Well the people at the head of Google and the spirit of Google is far left. Only recently they started to approach (lobbying) the right wing to vote and support them against the laws they don't like. Everything I said you can find it in the medias.

I am not too much into this, but rather on the Google policies for webmasters.

---------- Post added at 07:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

Originally Posted by memenode

They might just be annoyed. I know I would be..

Well, perhaps Google annoyed so many that they are at this point.

Unfair practices need to be corrected and they should follow more the law of free market not cronyism.

I agree that they should follow the free market, but not cronyism. Antitrust, however, represents just the opposite of the free market (not to mention such regulations fuel cronyism to begin with since the fear of government stepping on your toes makes you want political connections).

Originally Posted by memenode

I agree that they should follow the free market, but not cronyism. Antitrust, however, represents just the opposite of the free market (not to mention such regulations fuel cronyism to begin with since the fear of government stepping on your toes makes you want political connections).

I think this is also a political debat

If regulations fuel cronyism, lobbysts fuel their own laws, this corrupt game has no end.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

If regulations fuel cronyism, lobbysts fuel their own laws, this corrupt game has no end.

Exactly. They're both in the same process. What creates demand for both cronyism and lobbying is government's power to intervene into an otherwise normal functioning of the market. If government didn't have such power there would be no point to lobbying or political connections. Free market would be left as the only means to get ahead.

You wouldn't need an army of laywers, lobbyists nor political cronies if you didn't fear the next law ruining your business, and that next law could very well be fueled by a similar army of government warriors from another company. Whenever a business wants the government to point their guns at a competitor's business, they invent these "causes", often pretending to be grassroots, just to get some public support for their otherwise 100% private concerns. It is a corrupt game without end, and it cannot be anything other than that so long as we keep the fundamentals that fuel it.

Originally Posted by memenode

Exactly. They're both in the same process. What creates demand for both cronyism and lobbying is government's power to intervene into an otherwise normal functioning of the market. If government didn't have such power there would be no point to lobbying or political connections. Free market would be left as the only means to get ahead.

You wouldn't need an army of laywers, lobbyists nor political cronies if you didn't fear the next law ruining your business, and that next law could very well be fueled by a similar army of government warriors from another company. Whenever a business wants the government to point their guns at a competitor's business, they invent these "causes", often pretending to be grassroots, just to get some public support for their otherwise 100% private concerns. It is a corrupt game without end, and it cannot be anything other than that so long as we keep the fundamentals that fuel it.

This reminds me of the destruction of the dollar by some quantitative easing by the federal reserve, probably to create a new world order currency or the Amero.