Alert Blog Reviews

Dear World: Google is advertising in your countries. Duh. Turkey has recently determined that Google owes them $47M US (71M Turkish lira) in back taxes on advertising sold in Turkey. The government maintains that because Google sells advertising in Turkey and maintains an office and registered subsidiary in the country. Google, on the other hand, points out that “it runs its ad network operations from Ireland and thus is not obliged to pay taxes in Turkey merely because it owns a subsidiary there.” The suit recognizes that bills and checks (or should I say cheques?) for such advertising are addressed from/to the company’s European headquarters in Dublin. Says TechCrunch: In a statement, Google said it is acting in accordance with the tax laws of every country in which it operates, including Turkish laws, and that its negotiations with the government on this issue are ongoing. . . . We’ve also been in touch with a Turkish lawyer, who tells us the government is making a valid claim, pointing out that Google has set up a full-fledged company called Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (which means Google Advertising and Marketing Ltd.) in Turkey rather than what he refers to as a ‘liaison’ branch. Had it done the latter, says the lawyer, the company would have had to pay very little or no taxes at all. Personally, I’m a little skeptical of the Turkish government’s claim, mostly because if Google has really been taxable all this time (and since Google is the #1 online and search ad company in Turkey), they (the government or Google) would have figured this out a lot sooner. Did the Turkish government just figure out they could tax Google? Or is this, as TechCrunch points out, just a bargaining tactic tor force Google’s negotiations to go faster? (Note: the Turkish government says they’ve determined this after a year of investigating. Again, a year? It doesn’t take a year to figure out that someone should be paying you taxes, especially not if a Turkish lawyer can figure it out in one email. If they really wanted the taxes, they could have indicated that Google should be paying taxes at the beginning of the investigation instead of stalling a year while Google racked up more income that they could penalize. I think being dishonest like that should be reason enough to lose the suit.) Here’s what I think: if you really want to tax Google, countries of the world, then do it—but pass a new law that they can’t get out of. Don’t try to cobble together a legal argument, backform your present laws that may or may not fit the situation, or stall an entire year to try to squeeze more out of them. Because, after all, taxing Internet companies for selling stuff in your jurisdiction has worked really well in New York , North Carolina , etc. What do you think? Will Turkey get their cash, will the case get thrown out, or are they really just hoping for Google to settle for any amount? Will this make Google reluctant to operate in that country in the future?

Read more:
Turkey Suing Google for $47M in Back Taxes

Sometimes, when you have a really good idea, you have this irrepressible urge to do something crazy with it. Like register it with the government. And then, when other companies independently develop similar ideas, you protect that registration by suing the pants off those other companies . It is, after all, the American way. And it’s what Red Bend Software is doing to Google over an algorithm in Google Chrome. The Courgette algorithm checks the software for updates (using a difference table), then pushes the packed updates to the software. Unfortunately, it violates a 2003 patent owned by Red Bend , which protects a substantially similar idea. This does happen from time to time (probably more often than we’d think). Red Bend informed Google of their error on September 7 and waited for them to update Chrome. But nothing happened. To make the case worse, Google had also published the algorithm as part of the open source code for Chrome, which Red Bend says is even worse. That combined with six weeks without redress, brought Red Bend to sue Google for willful copyright infringement , which carries three times the financial penalties as unintentional copyright infringement. Sometimes, of course, companies use the patent system as a kind of legal trap—they register “obvious” ideas, or those with the potential to be used, and lie in wait for unsuspecting companies. But Red Bend does appear to be a legitimate mobile software company—and, interestingly enough, a member of the Open Mobile Alliance, the organization that promotes open standards development for mobile software. A little ironic, then, that they’re especially upset about the open source code for the algorithm. What do you think? Should Red Bend get their money? Or should they “get with the program”?

More here:
Google Chrome: Copyright Infringer?

Google wants a book deal. And no, not so it can spill all the secrets of the Internet, but so they can offer electronic versions of books. But their proposed settlement faced so much opposition that they had to drop it , although they’re still pursuing other avenues. Aside from Yahoo and Microsoft , authors also challenged the Google book deal—including Chinese authors. But the Chinese authors’ complaints, when indexed by Google, were listed as potentially harmful in SERPs, The Inquirer reports . Baidu gave no malware warning in its SERPs for the page. After readers reported this, the newspaper of the Communist Party accused the search engine of keeping its users away from the information. Meanwhile, an unnamed paper official said the section with the complaint was “maliciously blocked by Google.” Yep. That’s right. The Chinese government’s newspaper accused Google of censorship. Now, we all know that the Chinese government would never censor the Internet, so clearly, we can definitely believe everything they say. Riiiight. The facts: Google is serving a malware warning for that page. But, Google claims, that warning is handled by an algorithm. No human hands, etc. And we’ve seen in the past that’s the way this works. So what do you think? Is Google trying to keep its users from seeing the Chinese authors’ complaints? Or is it just their crappy luck that their software flagged the page and now it’s getting even more attention? via

Continued here:
China Accuses Google of Censorship (Seriously)

A lot of people are considering online affiliate programs as one way of getting passive income.  Affiliate marketing entail selling a particular service or product on commission.  As an affiliate marketer, you will be paid for encouraging customers to purchase a given product that is offered to them. Finding a good affiliate program will be a sure way of getting passive income.  The most prudent thing to do is to ensure that you carry out a research to check the terms of the affiliate programs as choosing the one with poor terms will definitely give you frustrations after the much effort of encouraging customers to transact. The following are some of the tips necessary for you to bear in mind when choosing the affiliate programs: Duration of cookies tracing There are affiliate programs that will give you life-time cookies and others for a shorter time.  When you are choosing the affiliate marketing to engage in, it will be prudent to consider the amount of time the cookies will last. Some customers may take a while before purchasing a product, and when they do when your time is expired, you will be unlikely to earn from them. Minimum payment for processing It will be important to ensure that you are signed to an affiliate program that will not have a very high minimum requirement to attain to be paid.  It should also not take ages to process your cash. Training and support A good affiliate marketing program will be the kind that will guarantee support to the marketers. You should be provided with the right tools such as the banners and other promotional materials for you to succeed. The customer support should also be efficient not only to the buyers that you will be directing but also to you as a marketer check the sales pages The sales page must be the kind that will be able to win customers. You should check on it keenly because if it is unlikely to impress you as an affiliate marketer, it will also not be impressive to the buyers. There should be high level off professionalism in the creation of the sales page. Check the terms and conditions Before promoting a given program, be sure that the terms and conditions are favorable to you. There are those programs that will have frustrating terms, or may appear to be so good but get different whenever you are making a claim Check the reputation of the program It will be prudent to conduct research that will enable you learn about a program and its products before you promote.  There are affiliate programs that are illegal. There are others that have had a bad reputation.  How would you feel promoting a beauty or weight loss product that has been reputed to have serious side effects on the users? It will be morally wrong to join some affiliate programs.  You should never receive commissions to scam people.

See original here:
Tips to Choosing the Right Affiliate Program

Big day yesterday. Bing announces it is getting Twitter results for its index ahead of Google announcing the same thing . I wonder if that is a balm for Mr.Ballmer that at least he one-upped Google on one occasion. But wait there appears to be yet another rabbit that Microsoft can pull out of its hat. Drum roll please. It’s Facebook! Ok, before we move on which is your favorite; Facebing, bingbook, MicroFace, In Your Face Google or something else? Your input is required . Microsoft is showing some chutzpah in getting aggressive by striking deals with the largest public provider of real search data (Twitter) and arguably THE largest, but not completely public, gatherer of information about what people are doing as you read this. The Telegraph reports Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, has confirmed its search deal with Microsoft’s Bing is expected to launch within two months and that Facebook isn’t making any money from the arrangement. Talking exclusively to the Telegraph at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco, Ms Sandberg said: “We should have our public updates integrated into a Bing beta within a couple of months. Unlike Twitter’s data stream, which is already totally public, we have to be very careful about making sure the correct data is streamed.” This is big news for the search and social media industries as the lines blur further and further. It’s a natural progression, in that it makes sense to be able to search what is being said in real time as well as index alk of this information. Why it hasn’t happened until this point is not about logic but rather it’s about business. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and write about how it makes sense and why isn’t anyone doing it but it’s quite another to make these things happen so there is business benefit to all involved. On that point it is interesting that Ms. Sandberg is trying to make it look like Facebook is taking the high road and saying that Facebook does not intend to make money from its data. Huh? Please don’t say that you think we are either that stupid or gullible. It’s the data that you have and the further reach of that data that will make advertisers come to you with their wallets open. OK so there may not be any fees attached for access but there are dollar signs attached to the move for sure. So this should be interesting for sure. Sandberg made sure to put aside any fears about the data privacy that has been one of the attractive features of Facebook will not be compromised. Facebook will only stream data from users who have set their privacy settings to “everyone on web”, which Ms Sandberg thinks will allay anyone’s concerns about breaches of confidence. “Only people who have agreed to share their updates with everyone on the web will have their updates streamed to Bing. This move is about giving people more choices about how they share their information,” she said. So will you make your information available to everyone? That is the real question here. Facebook has a shady history of TOS shenanigans so it will be important that those who are not savvy (which I venture is the vast majority of Facebook users) are educated as to whether they are or are not opted in to having their information on display for the entire world and not just their friends. I think that will be the real test of how this works or not. As for me, I am not sure whether I want the world to see everything I do on Facebook. I am doing nothing illegal or immoral (as for matters of taste that is up for debate) but I also like the fact that not everyone is looking at the stuff I put up there. So, let’s sit back and wonder how this will play out. Will it be a winner or just a really good press release? Your take?

View post:
Facebook and bing – Perfect Together?

It hardly seems possible, but it was just last year that the Goohoo (Yahoogle?) search ad deal was under scrutiny from the US government. Ultimately, that scrutiny killed the deal —since the DoJ informed Google that they’d face anti-trust charges if they went through with the deal. Here we are, a year later, and two search giants are once again bringing a proposed search ad deal before the skeptical DoJ . And once again, we have a powerful organization weighing in. Last year, major advertising groups, including the American Association of Advertising Agencies, spoke out against the Googahoo deal . This year, they’re weighing in again—this time in favor of Microsoft and Yahoo’s deal . In a letter (PDF) to the Department of Justice, Nancy Hill, president and chief executive of the 4A, urged the governmental body to approve the deal—and fast: We believe that Yahoo and Microsoft’s proposal to combine their technologies and search platforms is good for advertisers, marketing services agencies, website publishers and consumers. These benefits are too important to wait for. As leading members of the advertising and marketing services industry, we urge the Department of Justice to bring its antitrust review to a speedy conclusion. This proposal enhances competition, and should be allowed to take effect as soon as possible. Last year, another organization that opposed the deal, the ANA, argued against the Google-Yahoo partnership, saying it would “control 90 percent of search advertising inventory[,] . . . and . . . likely diminish competition, increase concentration of market power, limit choices currently available and potentially raise prices to advertisers for high quality, affordable search advertising.” Of course, the obvious difference here is that Bing/Microsoft is no Google in the search world. While Bing is inching up the charts, they have nothing on the search giant. But let’s be honest— do you think Bingahoo has a chance of taking on Google? Or do you just hope against hope?

Go here to read the rest:
Singing a Different Tune to DOJ: Please Okay Bingahoo!

There’s a problem brewing that involves Google and election mud-slinging. Ooh, I just heard a collective “I knew it” from political conspiracy theorists around the country, but it’s not quite what you think. The problem involves the mandated disclaimer often needed for any kind of political ad. You know the kind: “This ad was paid for by the party to elect Michael Scott mayor of Scranton.” The issue under discussion is, how do you fit such a long disclaimer on a Google AdWords ad? In his recent campaign for mayor of St. Petersburg, Fla., Scott Wagman bought such an ad and was fined for lack of disclaimer. He was hardly the first to employ the tactic, which didn’t stop a rival campaign from complaining the ad did not have a “paid for by” disclaimer. The Florida Elections Commission ordered Wagman to remove it and pay a $250 fine, even though the required disclaimer was longer than the 68 characters allowed in the text of the ad, which wasn’t “paid for” until someone clicked on it. Now political eggheads and pencil pushers around the country are trying to figure out if Google ads need such a disclaimer, or do they fall within the realm of buttons and bumper-stickers–which require no such wording. I’d say they have about 2 years left to figure this out. Search spending showed improved usage numbers during the 2008 presidential election, and I suspect that trend will continue as we get closer to the 2012. My solution? Simply ensure the landing page has the disclaimer. After all, the ad hasn’t technically been “paid for” by anyone, until you click the ad and visit the landing page. But that might just be too simple of a solution for politicians. UPDATE: Google spokesperson Galen Panger has given us feedback on the Florida Elections Commission ruling: “Hi Andy—Just want to make sure your readers know this only applies to politicians in Florida due to the ruling by the Florida (not Federal) Elections Commission. Political advertisers in the other 49 states shouldn’t worry. AdWords was big in the 2008 election and usage by political advertisers continues to grow.”

See the original post:
Warning! That Political Ad on Google Could Cost You a $250 Fine!