or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google spent 8 times more on government lobbying than Apple in Q2 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google spent 8 times more on government lobbying than Apple in Q2 2012

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Google spent nearly $4 million for U.S. congressional lobbying in the second quarter of 2012, while Apple spent just $470,000.

The results, unearthed by Philip Elmer-Dewitt of Apple 2.0, reveal that Google spent more than 8 times as much as Apple on congressional lobbying. Both companies' amounts were down from the first quarter of 2012, when Google spent over $5 million, while Apple spent $500,000.

Public records show which specific bills Apple's lobbying efforts were related to in Washington. Among them was the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Protect IP Act, the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act, and the Job Creation & Innovation Act.

Apple also showed interest in digital textbooks, education technology funding, wireless spectrum assignments, and online consumer protection bills, particularly with respect to children's identities on the Internet.

Lobbying
Congressional lobbying disclosures, via Apple 2.0.


Also included on the list of specific lobbying issues was "Electronic Waste, Energy Star, EPEAT, Green Technology." Its inclusion is noteworthy because earlier this month Apple decided to withdraw its products from EPEAT green certification, only to reverse that decision and admit in the process that the company had made a "mistake."

The latest numbers show that the distance between Apple and Google in money spent on lobbying continues to grow. For example, in the first quarter of 2011, Apple spent about 560,000, or one-third the amount Google and Microsoft had each spent in the same three-month span.
post #2 of 39

Don't be evil.™

post #3 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Don't be evil.

Both companies evil are down from previous quarter

post #4 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
Both companies evil are down from previous quarter

 

Be slightly less evil than before.™

post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Be slightly less evil than before.™

exactly

post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Don't be evil.

 

OK.  First explain why lobbying makes Google evil when there are few companies that don't lobby?  Even Apple does it, just to less extent than Google.  

 

This is a cheap shot at Google.  Google is paying lobbyist because their search and ad business is in the cross hairs of possible anti-trust lawsuits.  I can assure you their competitors are certainly lobbying for their side, hoping to get Google broken up as a monopoly.  Google is just playing the game making sure they have a few people in their corner.

 

Frankly, I find the existence of lobbyist sickening and I think it leads to corruption, but I blame the the politicians that take the money more than the companies. I think Google is just playing the game.  I suppose Apple people would rather Google just lay down and die.  Let's see if Apple stays pure in a few years when (and if) Google, Microsoft, and Samsung prepare to bring an anti-trust lawsuit against them over the iPad and iPhone.  If they don't lobby and simply let things fall where they may, then you can all point and laugh at me.

post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post
OK.  First explain why lobbying makes Google evil when there are few companies that don't lobby?

 

I don't like lobbying. That's me, I guess. I believe in objective right, and lobbying doesn't seem right.

 

Quote:
Even Apple does it, just to less extent than Google.

 

Sure. And I don't like that, either. They do it less, though, so the more is open to jokes, if that's your bag. Google has the choice to not do it at all, just like Apple. Google has decided to do it far more than Apple.

post #8 of 39

To be fair Google was spending a lot of money trying to protect network neutrality and make sure that the sale of the 700 MHz band came with those conditions. Such as allowing any device and any application. I would be in support of those initiatives.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 39

GOOGLE SUX!
 

post #10 of 39

Distasteful though it may be, Apple should probably spend more on this. Like patent lawsuits, it's a necessary evil. 

 

Also, with unlimited corporate donations to SuperPACs now legal, Apple might want to consider spending big on those, too. Apple could find some house and senate members who are in tight re-election races and offer to donate big $$ to SuperPACs supporting those candidates, provided that those candidates take Apple's positions on various issues. 

 

It's ugly, it's bad for America, but it's what the Supreme Court has given us. We all have to deal with the world as it exists, even as we might try to change it. 

post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I don't like lobbying. That's me, I guess. I believe in objective right, and lobbying doesn't seem right.

 

 

Sure. And I don't like that, either. They do it less, though, so the more is open to jokes, if that's your bag. Google has the choice to not do it at all, just like Apple. Google has decided to do it far more than Apple.

 

I guess we really are in agreement for the most part then because I agree lobbyist are pathetic, soul-sucking vampires.  I would defend both Apple or Google purely on the grounds that I think most companies find themselves forced into lobbying because "the system" almost necessitates it, but as soon as you start paying a lobbyist, you're an enabler.  So I don't let them off the hook entirely...

post #12 of 39
Google is doing it wrong and giving the money to the wrong people. Apple is smart - give some cash to the judges (like Koh) and start getting results.

/S
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Public records show which specific bills Apple's lobbying efforts were related to in Washington. Among them was the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Protect IP Act, the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act, and the Job Creation & Innovation Act.

 

Did Apple lobby for or against SOPA/PIPA?  This is far more important than the mere fact that they were involved.

 

WRT the idea of lobbying in general, that's to be expected.  When you've got a government that rewards cronyism instead of innovation and productivity, then any company that wants to survive is going to do what it must to get established as political cronies.

 

When the whole system is corrupt, business either get similarly corrupt or they go out of business.

post #14 of 39

wow did people even read the report?  - find out what the company is lobbying for first before passing judgement.

 

being against lobby "just because" is idiotic - if they using their money to convince the government to do something that is beneficial that is a good thing.

post #15 of 39

One would think that Google shouldn't have to lobby for that. 

post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair Google was spending a lot of money trying to protect network neutrality and make sure that the sale of the 700 MHz band came with those conditions. Such as allowing any device and any application. I would be in support of those initiatives.

 

This is what I was thinking too, along with the Google Fiber thing. I think it's much bigger than yet another Android vs iOS sandbox.People lose sight that like a Venn diagram, most of each company is very different from the other and obviously these efforts and the money spent will be different as well. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #17 of 39

This article is a repeat, I demand a better topic!

post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by superjunaid View Post
This article is a repeat, I demand a better topic!

 

Better pay up.

post #19 of 39

Google's priorities increasingly look like they have absolutely nothing to do with delighting the User. 

post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Don't be evil.™

 

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

Someone has got to balance out all of the lobbying done by the RIAA and MPAA.

post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair Google was spending a lot of money trying to protect network neutrality and make sure that the sale of the 700 MHz band came with those conditions. Such as allowing any device and any application. I would be in support of those initiatives.

You're joking right? Didn't Google team up with Verizon and sell out on Network Neutrality?

post #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Unless the player walks around with the motto "don't be evil" tattooed on his chest.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Someone has got to balance out all of the lobbying done by the RIAA and MPAA.

 

Apple did. The right way. That game is over. (Assuming you don't want to do illegal things, of course)

post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains View Post

You're joking right? Didn't Google team up with Verizon and sell out on Network Neutrality?

I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.

 

Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.

 

It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair Google was spending a lot of money trying to protect network neutrality and make sure that the sale of the 700 MHz band came with those conditions. Such as allowing any device and any application. I would be in support of those initiatives.

To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.

Well to be really really fair one would have to clarify that although they DID lobby the government on the book copyright issue prior to 2008, but it didn't help them and they lost a lawsuit with the book authors and had to pay $125 million in fines. Since that time they are working under a mutually agreed set of licensing arrangements that complies with the provisions of the ruling.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 39

It's sad -- but I figure Google is being smarter here.

 

The course we'd like Principles to rule the day -- but it's clear that if everyone was a lobbyist or a layer for the crooks before they got their government appointment -- then money is going to "keep them honest" a lot more than depending on the facts.

post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Well to be really really fair one would have to clarify that although they DID lobby the government on the book copyright issue prior to 2008, but it didn't help them and they lost a lawsuit with the book authors and had to pay $125 million in fines. Since that time they are working under a mutually agreed set of licensing arrangements that complies with the provisions of the ruling.

They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.

I was just reading up on that. I think the opt in vs opt out only applies to orphan books where the copyright holder is unknown, otherwise the rules are in compliance with the original terms for books for which the copyright holder is known. Even in this case though Google lost so they are back to the original settlement rules.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.

 

Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.

 

It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.

My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.

post #30 of 39

It costs a lot more to defend lies, about lies, on top of lies, told about half truths.   Google has turned into such a pathetic liar and poor excuse for a company.

 

Hey to add you guys are talking about lobbying, Google just sent a letter to the DOJ that says that if they rip off apples private patents and use them and they become popular then they should become a standards patent automatically and apple should be forced to license them to everyone for standards based patent fees or FRAND what a thief and carpet bagger company.

 

If that is the case then because googles search algorithm is so popular it should become a standard and they should be forced to license it to microsoft for bing, and yahoo for there search engine and anyone else who needs to use it.

How would they feel about that.


Edited by Mechanic - 7/23/12 at 5:19pm
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains View Post

My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.

The agreement did recognize that wireless networks require much more management due to the limited availability of the spectrum but the stipulation was to leave it basically unregulated except with the provision that the FCC could easily step in with fines and restrictions should the carriers start behaving in an anti-competitive manner or unfairly blocking the public Internet.

 

Even through the initial request and final response could be over the air, the main speed factors that would limit a company like Google would be the bandwidth to its data centers where the application is actually running.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #32 of 39

Google's new mantra:  "Go ahead and be evil... in moderation."

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I was just reading up on that. I think the opt in vs opt out only applies to orphan books where the copyright holder is unknown, otherwise the rules are in compliance with the original terms for books for which the copyright holder is known. Even in this case though Google lost so they are back to the original settlement rules.

So you're admitting that they ARE trying to change the copyright laws in their favor - which is exactly what I was saying.

As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work. (Not to mention, of course, that the proposed rules allow them to make only the most cursory effort to find the author, anyway). Google sends their receptionist to holler out the front door "would the author of XXXXXX please come forward?" and if no one comes forward within 30 seconds, they can claim that they couldn't find the copyright holder.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 39

Apple already has Al Gore, former VP of the US, on its board. Steve Jobs was known to have been a close friend of the Clintons. 

 

I don't see why Apple has to spend any money on lobbying when some of his buddies are also powerful political figures in US. 

post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work.

The argument they make is that if the copyright holder cannot be found with a reasonable effort then they should be able to reproduce the article based on the logic that withholding the academic information is a loss to mankind because the withholding of the documents does not benefit either the unknown copyright holder or the academic community.

 

Yes it is true that nearly half the books ever published fall into this orphan category which is the treasure trove they wish to exploit, nevertheless, I would be interested in reading and being able to search them.


Edited by mstone - 7/23/12 at 8:37pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

 

OK.  First explain why lobbying makes Google evil when there are few companies that don't lobby?  Even Apple does it, just to less extent than Google.  

 

Because Google spends so much and are so large that they should take all responsibility for lobbying.  Kinda like Apple takes all the blame for labor policies in China.

post #37 of 39
Comparing the lobbying expenditures of the two companies is pointless. They are very different companies and have different interests to protect.
All companies spend too much to influence legislators and stifle competition.
Corporations are not people.
post #38 of 39
Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone View Post

 

It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.

 

"Supposed to be" being the operative phrase.  In reality, the US government looks out for the interests of the US government.  The politicians and bureaucrats  don't care about the public or corporations.  They care about maximizing their personal power over everything else in the world, occasionally making speeches and issuing press releases designed to con you into thinking it's for your own good.

 

The government that governs best is the one that governs least.

post #39 of 39

$4 million buys a lot of postage stamps. Unless we're talking about corruption.

 

I remember the government a few years ago voting that giving money to politicians isn't corruption because "money is speech" and talking of freedom of speech. They can distort anything that works in their favor.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google spent 8 times more on government lobbying than Apple in Q2 2012