
Sergey Brin wanted to leave China; Eric Schmidt wanted to stay - kareemm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575001281662251848.html
======
andrewljohnson
This article requires me to login :(

Murdoch needs to get with the program.

~~~
brown9-2
Can anyone supply the full text?

edit: I remembered the news.google.com trick:

By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO

Google Inc.'s startling threat to withdraw from China was an intensely
personal decision, drawing its celebrated founders and other top executives
into a debate over the right way to confront the issues of censorship and
cyber security.

The blog post Tuesday that revealed Google's very public response to what it
called a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate
infrastructure originating from China" was crafted over a period of weeks,
with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

For the two men, China has always been a sensitive topic. Mr. Brin has long
confided in friends and Google colleagues of his ambivalence in doing business
in China, noting that his early childhood in Russia exacerbated the moral
dilemma of cooperating with government censorship, people who have spoken to
him said. Over the years, Mr. Brin has served as Google's unofficial corporate
conscience, the protector of its motto "Don't be Evil."

The investigation into the cyber intrusion began weeks ago, although how
Google detected it remains unclear. As Google employees gathered more evidence
they believed linked the attack to China and Chinese authorities, Chief
Executive Eric Schmidt, along with Messrs. Page and Brin, began discussing how
they should respond, entering into an intense debate over whether it was
better to stay in China and do what they can to change the regime from within,
or whether to leave, according to people familiar with the discussions. A
Google spokesman said Messrs. Page, Brin and Schmidt wouldn't comment.

Mr. Schmidt made the argument he long has, according to these people, namely
that it is moral to do business in China in an effort to try to open up the
regime. Mr. Brin strenuously argued the other side, namely that the company
had done enough trying and that it could no longer justify censoring its
search results.

How the debate ultimately resolved itself remains unclear.The three ultimately
agreed they should disclose the attack publicly, trying to break with what
they saw as a conspiratorial culture of companies keeping silent about attacks
of this nature, according to one person familiar with the matter.

Soon, Google's vice president of public policy and communications, Rachel
Whetstone, began crafting and revising a number of versions of a possible
statement the company planned to release publicly, these people said, sharing
it with the three.

The top three agreed that in addition to discussing the attack, the blog post
should contain some language about human rights, the strongest statement of
which is a clause in the penultimate paragraph of the post.

The section said they had reached the decision to re-evaluate their business
in China after considering the attacks "combined with the attempts over the
past year to further limit free speech on the web."

Concerned about potential retribution against Google employees in China, the
founders and their advisors agreed to include a line saying that the move was
"driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or
involvement of our employees in China."

To further protect Chinese employees on the ground, executives didn't notify
the vast majority of Google's China team until a few minutes before the post
went up.

Disagreements among Google's top troika aren't unusual. Last year, for
example, Mr. Schmidt told reporters that he had long opposed Mr. Page's desire
to build a Web browser but ultimately came around.

Google's conduct in China has long incited broader geopolitical debate over
whether Western companies should do business in the country. In 2006, after
Google said it would censor its China search engine, Google was called to
defend the move before the U.S. House of Representatives, which began
contemplating legislation that would prohibit U.S. companies from cooperating
with Chinese officials, except in certain circumstances.

On Tuesday, Google said it could no longer abide by Chinese government
requirements that it filter the search results on its site in the country,
Google.cn. The company said it will be discussing the matter with the Chinese
government, stating that it realized that its move may mean that it will have
to shut down the Web site and potentially its offices in China.

The question is whether other U.S. companies will agree with Google's
definition of evil.Google's decision conflicts with the strategies of many
U.S. companies to deepen their involvement in China, which is both a key
market for their potential exports as well as a source for many manufactured
goods on which U.S. companies and consumers depend.

Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the
U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet
censorship or other issues.

Some expressions of support for Google's position flowed in from around the
world, including from consumers in China as well as some U.S.
companies—including rival Yahoo Inc.—and politicians. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton Tuesday issued a statement saying Google's allegations "raise
very serious concerns and questions," and that "we look to the Chinese
government for an explanation."

Odds are high Google could be left largely on its own in taking concrete steps
to confront the Chinese government. Veteran observers of trade between the
countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has very little
leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.

Besides the Google.cn Web site, Google has a range of other business
initiatives and partnerships in China that could be affected by its decision.
By snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government
retaliation against itself or its partners. The decision also affects local
competitors who could benefit from any retreat.Shares of Google's biggest
Chinese rival, Baidu Inc., surged following the news.

Google's blog post Tuesday said cyber-attacks on its infrastructure resulted
in "the theft of intellectual property," stating that it found evidence to
suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts
of Chinese human-rights activists. It said other U.S. companies were targeted
by similar attacks, and dozens of Gmail accounts around the world had
separately been "routinely" accessed by third parties it did not identify.

~~~
nfnaaron
Do you really want to be copying entire Murdoch articles?

~~~
greyman
Not all of them, of course. Only in special cases when it is necessary, like
this one...otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read
it?

~~~
hyperbovine
_otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read it?_

Gee, how about by paying the organization that employed a reporter to write
the story......

I swear, it's like half the internet has forgotten what it's like to buy
something.

~~~
greyman
For normal usage like regular reading, I would agree with you, and also, it
was not me who downmoded this comment. But this is a special occasion -
someone brought the link to this article to our community here to discuss, so
naturally I want to read the article. But that does not mean, that I want to
became a paying customer of WSJ...as an European, I even do not know that much
about it.

Then, if it is not possible to legally read the text without paying, then I
would suggest to not submit such content here to HN. Let the paying customers
to discuss that stuff between themselves, then.

~~~
nfnaaron
Even if you don't subscribe and can't read the article, the discussion could
be interesting as there are probably many subscribers in this group. It might
even prompt someone to subscribe. And of course you can search for the same
news from a different venue if your interest is piqued; no one has a monopoly
on the news itself.

In the case of WSJ and NYT, they've provided an approved (by them) way to read
paywalled content for free: by visiting via the google "trick." A post of the
google search, like ars did, is enough.

It's one thing for a subscriber, or google trickster, to post a quote; I think
that's generally accepted practice, Murdoch and AP notwithstanding. In the
context of struggling content providers and blustering media owners it's at
least ironic to post an entire article.

~~~
greyman
OK, you are right. I didn't want to encourage anyone to post copyrighted
material here in full (although I don't see much difference between copying it
and provide a google trick, but that's not important.)

So far so good, if many HN members are WSJ subscribers, of course let's them
to discuss that stuff here, no problem from my side.

------
rgrieselhuber
Eric Schmidt is always in much greater danger of losing his job based on
missing large market opportunities than Sergey or Larry ever will be, so it
makes sense that he would be the one who wanted to stay in China.

~~~
mahmud
Absolutely. As far as the bottom line and job security are concerned, Larry
and Sergey are immortal, while Schmidt is playing for performance.

~~~
marketer
It's probably a good thing for Google that Schmidt doesn't have the final say
in these decisions. He seems to have a misguided product sense. There was a
Charlie Rose interview where Schmidt he was convinced that Adwords was going
to be a flop, and tried to kill it. He didn't really want Chrome or Android.
It's too soon to tell whether or not this China move is a good one though..

------
wayne
Anyone else have a deja vu moment while reading this? The article repeats this
snippet of text twice, the second time adding the word "very":

"suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has [very] little leverage to
press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues."

~~~
robryan
I doubt they meant to do that, I'm was sitting there thinking wow they want
people to pay for this and they make mistakes like that that I never usually
see from bloggers.

------
ja30278
silly aside, but did anyone else notice that the following sentence appears
twice?

"Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the
U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet
censorship or other issues."

Seems like something a good copy editor would catch.

------
Prolorn
I'm curious how Page responded. Given what happened, it does seem he tilted
Brin's way in the end.

------
codexon
Is anyone surprised that Schmidt wanted to stay after making that privacy
statement blunder?

~~~
mahmud
Schmidt has his career on the line; tasked with growing the fastest growing
company in history, the man has bigger problems than you and I can conceive.

~~~
enneff
And he's doing an amazing job, from what I can see. I can't imagine the
pressure he'd be facing.

