As the publishing industry gradually moves online, Google has discovered that it's hard to shift some of its initiatives in the other direction--specifically, advertisements.


"While we hoped that Print Ads would create a new revenue stream for newspapers and produce more relevant advertising for consumers, the product has not created the impact that we--or our partners--wanted," Spencer Spinnell, director of Google print ads, wrote in a blog post Tuesday. "As a result, we will stop offering print ads on February 28."

Google launched the print ad program in November 2006, then expanded it in 2007, but with the recession in full bloom, the search giant has been winnowing projects to cut expenses. Google also offers programs for video and radio ads.

Spinnell said Google still wants to find a way to help the ailing journalism trade.

"We remain dedicated to working with publishers to develop new ways for them to earn money, distribute and aggregate content, and attract new readers online," he said. "We will continue to devote a team of people to look at how we can help newspaper companies. It is clear that the current Print Ads product is not the right solution, so we are freeing up those resources to try to come up with new and innovative online solutions that will have a meaningful impact for users, advertisers, and publishers."

Witness Ashley Grills, who helped Lori Drew with her coupon magazine business, said she remembered at least one time when Drew sat down and typed messages on the computer. She also testified that Drew wanted to print the conversations between "Josh" and Megan, lure the teen to a mall and then reveal who the fake boy really was.

A Missouri woman knew her 13-year-old neighbor was depressed and suicidal when she sent cruel Internet messages to the teenager, her former assistant testified. The girl killed herself after being told the world would be better off without her.

Ashley Grills, 20, told jurors Thursday she helped Lori Drew set up a fake MySpace profile of a 16-year-old boy to lure Megan Meier into an online relationship. Testifying for the prosecution under a grant of immunity, Grills also said she sent the last message from the fictitious "Josh Evans" to Megan in October 2006 on the day the girl hanged herself.

When she learned of Megan's death, Grills said Drew told her, "We could have pushed her overboard because she was suicidal and depressed.'"

Testimony was to resume Friday in the case against Drew, who has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing computers without authorization. Each count carries a potential sentence of five years in prison.

Prosecutors say Drew, 49, her then-13-year-old daughter, Sarah, and Grills created the MySpace alias in September 2006 to befriend Megan to find out if she was spreading rumors about Sarah.

The case is believed to be the nation's first cyberbullying trial. Its results could set a legal precedent for dealing with the issue of online harassment.

Defense attorney Dean Steward told jurors that Drew did not violate the Computer Use and Fraud Act -- used in the past to address computer hacking -- and reminded them that she was not facing charges dealing with the suicide. Steward has repeatedly asked U.S. District Judge George Wu to exclude testimony about Megan's suicide and twice sought a mistrial.

Grills, who helped Drew with her coupon magazine business, testified that she told Drew they might get in trouble for the scheme, but that Drew replied, "It was fine and people do it all the time."

Grills said Drew thought the MySpace account was a funny idea and was present about half of the time when Grills and Sarah sent messages to Megan.

Grills said she remembered at least one time when Drew sat down and typed messages on the computer. She also testified that Drew wanted to print the conversations between "Josh" and Megan, lure the teen to a mall and reveal who the fake boy really was.

To finally end the hoax, Grills said she devised a scenario in which "Josh" would move away so Megan would lose interest in him. When Megan persisted, the tactics changed.

"We decided to be mean to her so she would leave him alone," Grills said.

She testified that she sent the final message to Megan saying the world would be better off without her. Prosecutors did not ask if Drew was in the room when that message was sent, but Grills said she believed the message contributed to her death.

Grills said that a short time after finding out that Megan committed suicide, Drew and her husband ordered her to close the MySpace account.

The case is being prosecuted in Los Angeles because MySpace computer servers are based in the area.

Web rumors have Microsoft rebranding its Live Search service using the Kumo.com domain. Group Marketing Manager David Beaupariant is among Microsoft officials suggesting that Live services need to be better organized. Kumo.com is rumored to be owned by Microsoft and currently pointing to Microsoft test servers.

The Web's rumor mill kicked into overdrive during the weekend, with speculation that Microsoft is preparing to rebrand its Live Search service. Several sites noted that the software giant has taken control of a domain that could be the new Live Search -- Kumo.com.

The question of whether Live Search will become Kumo is being debated among those who follow the attempts by Microsoft to better position its search engine. According to LiveSide.net, "Kumo means 'cloud' or 'spider' in Japanese."

Possible New Interface

LiveSide, noting that there has been speculation for months among industry observers about a new branding and positioning for Live Search, said ownership of the Kumo.com domain was hidden behind the registrar, but it's pointing to an internal Microsoft test site.

In October, newlivesearch.blogspot.com posted "Windows Live Search Secrets," with screenshots of a possible new interface for the search service. The images had the brand of Windows Live Search. The site also quoted a comment on a Microsoft company blog by Group Marketing Manager David Beaupariant that the company recognizes "there is a brand issue across Windows Live."

LiveSide also reported that it had received a tip from a reader in the United Kingdom who said he had been shown new computers at a store and, in the process, was also shown a video touting Windows Live services, "coming in 2009." He sent the site some shots from his camera phone.

Like Beaupariant, Microsoft officials have, from time to time, expressed interest in organizing the various Live services into a more easily understood and differentiated set of services, especially since the company is continually adding new ones.

A new Microsoft manta, "software plus services," has been expressed frequently by the company, but even some industry observers have noted confusion at sorting out the different services and their names. Live.com has a variety of server, client and social-networking services and software under its umbrella brand.

Thinking of Shakespeare

Michael Gartenberg, vice president for consumer strategy at Jupitermedia, said the discussion made him think of Shakespeare. "Live Search by any other name," he paraphrased The Bard, "is still not Google."

Gartenberg noted that Live Search and the other "Live" services have also been known as Windows Live. Since the current Microsoft operating system is Vista, he said, perhaps this could be an indication that Windows as a brand signifier is losing favor.

If Microsoft does move to Kumo, he said, it would start with "zero brand equity," which, he noted, may be what Microsoft wants -- a blank slate on which it can imprint a new identity. But, he added, the main issue for the consumer is the product itself, and whether a newly branded search service will offer new features.

Developing a smart data security protocol will not eliminate the risk posed by unauthorized access to private or sensitive data, but it should at least reduce it. And when the data genie does escape the bottle, risk transfer in the form of insurance coverage can hopefully soften the financial blow.

The risk of data theft has never been greater. Businesses, organizations and government agencies (as well as their employees) have access to huge quantities of information -- some of which is not for public consumption. Making matters more complicated for risk managers involved in safeguarding data is that improvements in bandwidth, hard drive size and wireless capabilities have permitted firms to transact business with amazing mobility. With this mobility, however, comes added risk. The volume and speed with which data can be hacked is dizzying. As such, risk managers will increasingly be called upon to ensure that these risks are addressed and minimized as best as possible.

Protecting computer data with both existing and new stand-alone insurance products is no mean feat. The insurance market for such coverage is in a continuous state of flux, and very few of the product offerings can be characterized as "customer-friendly." Purchasing coverage for catastrophic loss events at affordable premiums remains challenging.

One major pitfall of policies that are supposed to cover data involves clauses that purport to condition coverage on the absence of "errors" or "omissions" in the data security measures employed by the policyholder. Such insurance policy clauses can be exploited and disputed by insurance companies seeking to evade their coverage obligations by arguing that the policyholder was somehow derelict in safeguarding computer data from hackers, among others. Furthermore, some policies may attempt to limit insurance coverage in situations where the data breach occurs when a computer is not actively connected to a network. This can leave a serious gap in coverage. Accordingly, policyholders should work with their brokers to pick insurance policy forms that are devoid of as many coverage exclusions as possible. Not all insurance policies are created equal.

Risk managers should be working in tandem with their IT departments and in-house attorneys to protect data that is both created by the business or is entrusted to it by outside entities and individuals. One of the starting points is developing a data security protocol that establishes clear directives regarding the handling of and access to information within the organization. An important step in the process is to inventory the information possessed and determine its sensitivity. Certain categories of information call out for heightened protection, including: health information, personally identifying information of customers and employees, certain types of nonpublic financial information, trade secrets, customer lists and business processes that yield competitive advantages.

Once such information is identified for heightened protection, it is not enough to simply guard against external threats of unauthorized access. It is also important to make intelligent decisions about internal access to protected classes of information. For example, it can be risky (and unnecessary) to grant company-wide access to sensitive customer information. Instead, under most circumstances, limiting the access internally to such information based upon necessity and security clearance reduces risks of unauthorized or improper disclosure of sensitive information.

Another important risk management consideration is access to and use of data from off-site locations. There should be policies specifying the types of documents that can be kept at home, as well as the permissible time period for keeping documents off-site. Additionally, the protocol should address the security of laptops used at home, on business trips and at any other remote location. Given the size of their hard drives, the theft of a laptop computer from a hotel room, office or elsewhere possesses a significant risk of unauthorized use and access to potentially sensitive information.

Developing a smart data security protocol will not eliminate the risk posed by unauthorized access to private or sensitive data but it should at least reduce it. And when the data genie does escape the bottle, risk transfer in the form of insurance coverage can hopefully soften the financial blow.

The United States advertising industry is one constituency hoping that Yahoo remains independent and intact. It often looks at Google and Microsoft as competitive threats that increasingly seek to broker the sale of ads in all media formats and even in some cases to help advertisers create their own Internet spots.

There is a new parlor game in Silicon Valley: guessing who will replace Jerry Yang at the helm of the troubled Internet giant Yahoo.

Yang, a Yahoo co-founder, said Monday that he would relinquish the chief executive role once a successor is named and revert to being "chief Yahoo," the strategy position he held before his 18 turbulent months of running the company.

But even before a new boss is selected, Yahoo has an even more fundamental decision to make, analysts and other Internet watchers say. Does it want to remain an independent company, trying to grow in a range of businesses while it fights Google in the crucial arena of Web search? Or should it finally listen to the devotees of deal-making and sell some or all of itself to another Internet player, most likely Microsoft?

Yahoo shareholders are clearly rooting for a deal. Shares of Yahoo rose 8.7 percent, or 92 cents, Tuesday to $11.55, largely on hopes that Yang's departure might help push the company into the arms of an acquirer.

Steven Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, has said he has no interest in making another bid for Yahoo, but he has expressed repeated interest in buying Yahoo's search business. Many observers and Internet veterans agree that this remains the company's most attractive option.

"Yahoo is still in many ways the definitive brand of the consumer Internet, but I don't think they can or should compete with Google any longer," said Ross Levinsohn, a former president of Fox Interactive Media. "That game is over."

If the Yahoo board agrees, it will want an experienced chief executive with a history of deal-making who is also capable of running the online media properties left behind.

Potential candidates who could embrace this vision of Yahoo include Peter Chernin, the president of the News Corp.; Jonathan Miller, a former chief executive of AOL; and John Chapple, president of Hawkeye Investments, who was listed on the alternative slate of Yahoo directors offered by Carl Icahn, the activist investor, during a proxy battle last summer.

But some observers think Yahoo's board could forgo any kind of deal with Microsoft and select a leader who stabilizes the company, unifies its employees and tries to capitalize on its broad technological assets. Potential candidates that fit with this strategy have strong technical backgrounds and include Marc Andreessen, the co-founder of Netscape, and Jeff Jordan, a former eBay executive who runs the online reservations start-up OpenTable.

Susan Decker, the president of Yahoo, will also be considered for the job, although analysts say anyone from Yahoo's current leadership would encounter significant skepticism from investors.

The U.S. advertising industry is one constituency hoping that Yahoo remains independent and intact. It often looks at Google and Microsoft as competitive threats that increasingly seek to broker the sale of ads in all media formats and even in some cases to help advertisers create their own Internet spots.

Yahoo, on the other hand, remains a largely unthreatening friend.

"The ad community doesn't want another big Internet player sitting in the hands of someone that competes with them," said Mike Leo, the chief executive of Operative, a digital advertising technology firm.

To avoid deals that would break up Yahoo, a new chief executive would need to tackle some of the well-chronicled cultural problems that former employees said seemed to get worse under Yang.

These include a climate of indecision, constant, interminable meetings and widespread overlapping of responsibilities. The new chief executive will also have to deal with a legacy of head-scratching management moves -- like Yahoo's announcement last month that it would lay off 10 percent of the company but would not announce who was being cut until December. That put Yahoo employees under a two-month cloud of uncertainty.

Whatever the Yahoo board decides to do, it still has considerable assets with which to work. The company still attracts 500 million users a month, is the leading Web e-mail service and has many other profitable Internet franchises in news, sports and video.

It also remains one of the top brands on the Internet, even if the exclamation point at the end of its name now looks wildly overexuberant.

"This isn't like AOL. They actually have a big loyal audience that isn't going away," said David Card, an analyst at Forrester. "They just need to pick their battles more sensibly."

Microsoft plans one more release of the beta for its Internet Explorer 8 browser early next year. After that, Microsoft plans to release the final version of IE8. The new Microsoft browser is expected to favor Internet standards in default mode, rather than Microsoft's standards. The final IE8 will have new features, including a privacy mode.

Microsoft has announced that its final update of the current beta Internet Explorer 8 browser will be released in next year's first quarter -- after which it will launch the final release. Some observers had been expecting the final update to be released this year.

After one more update of beta IE8 early in 2009, the next public release is "typically called a 'release candidate,'" Internet Explorer General Manager Dean Hachamovitch explained earlier this week on a company blog. The release candidate, he noted, indicates the end of the beta period.

'Complete and Done'

"We want the technical community of people and organizations interested in Web browsers to take this update as a strong signal that IE8 is effectively complete and done," he added. "They should expect the final product to behave as this update does."

Practically speaking, he noted, this means testers should feel comfortable testing sites and services with the early 2009 beta release, he said, making changes if needed for customer experience and reporting any critical issues back to Microsoft. The final release, Hachamovitch said, will be delivered after the company responds to any feedback on critical issues.

He added that "we will be very selective about what changes we make between the next update and final release."

However, a posting by a Microsoft technical manager earlier this year noted that IE 8 will be more favorably disposed to Internet standards, rather than proprietary Microsoft standards, as in the past. So browsing with the default settings could cause problems for pages and services designed for earlier IE versions.

The default mode will include greater compatibility with W3C Internet guidelines, CSS 2.1, and HTML 5, as well as improved support for AJAX techniques. An upcoming add-in from Microsoft can be used by developers so their pages are displayed according to IE7.

New Privacy Features

Hachamovitch reported that Microsoft has been going through extensive data on IE8's performance. This includes 20 million IE sessions, hundreds of hours of usability lab sessions, thousands of threads from user forums, and hundreds of hours "listening and answering questions in meetings with partners and other important organizations."

He added that this doesn't include data from users who choose to say yes to report a Web page problem when IE 8 has crashed or otherwise failed to perform correctly.

The additional time before final release will allow Microsoft to tweak any bugs and finalize several expected new features. News reports indicate that the additions are primarily in the area of privacy. For instance, one feature could include include private browsing so users can control whether the browser saves their history and other related data. Some observers have referred to this as porn mode.

Google has begun to crowd out other brands. I was a loyal MapQuest guy, but as Google Maps added features, it seemed cumbersome to go elsewhere. And even something as specific as HopStop, an elegant tool I used to navigate the New York subways, is left behind as Google gets smarter about the difference between the N-R line and the A-C-E.

Not long ago, someone invited me out to the Googleplex, the nickname for Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California.

The fact is, I already live there. And it's starting to worry me.

Having grown up in the vapor trail of the '60s, I learned to be wary of large, centralized organizations, and yet Google, a huge enterprise with a market value of $80 billion, is my ever-present wingman.

My increasingly exclusive relationship with Google started with search, of course, when I switched from Yahoo years ago. Eventually I accepted an invitation to Gmail, with its oodles of storage and very granular search function, and it has oddly become my default database -- deep, rich and personal.

I added the company's calendar because I needed one I could share both inside and outside of work. And then the calendar and e-mail started talking to each other -- and to me, I guess -- by asking whether I wanted to schedule an event that was mentioned in an incoming message. Although it sort of creeped me out, the answer was yes, which it almost always is when it comes to Google.

Google has begun to crowd out other brands. I was a loyal MapQuest guy, but as Google Maps added features, it seemed cumbersome to go elsewhere. And even something as specific as HopStop, an elegant tool I used to navigate the New York subways, is left behind as Google gets smarter about the difference between the N-R line and the A-C-E.

I'm getting ready for the Oscar season, so I needed to set up some relevant RSS feeds, and Google Reader was handy, so there's that. It's easy to update my status under my chat icon while I'm on Gmail, so I tend to update that mood ring with more frequency than my Facebook status. When Google acquired YouTube, it gained another chunk of my mindshare.

And then a few weeks ago, I noticed there was a steady march of new little camera icons on the Gmail chat function. I looked around and saw a colored button at the top of my e-mail page that was a link to Google voice and video chat. I clicked it, hit the download button, and within 20 seconds, I was ready to go.

It's not the first video chatting that I have done, only the first that actually worked well. Within minutes of downloading, I was talking live on my PC to my 11-year-old daughter on a Mac, a process that in the past would have involved everything short of splitting the atom. Then I told my twins away at college and, yes, my mother-in-law about it, and before long we were all chatting away in an easy, friction-free future.

Score another one for the Googleplex.

You could credit Google, the largest ad seller in the world, with being a brilliant marketer and advertiser, but when was the last time you saw an ad, not served up by Google, but about Google? Not very often. That's largely because Google's Web platform, in all of its high-functioning glory, is its marketing.

"The most powerful form of advertising is to be exceptional," said Ranjit Mathoda, an investor and technologist who blogs at Mathoda.com. "Google has created an ecosystem that perpetuates itself by being useful."

Take video chat. Many other companies would take that kind of quantum leap and shout it from the rooftops, but Google just did a smallish blog post about the new feature and left it at that.

"We do have a philosophy that our products should speak for themselves," said Jeff Huber, senior vice president for engineering at Google. "We tend not to make a lot of noise."

As always with Google, the price point is appealing: zero, if you don't count the amount of personal data that I am trading for all that utility. With Google, it is always simple, and any engineer will tell you that simple is hard. There had been a lot of talk within Google about creating video chat as a PC-only application, a much easier endeavor for the company, but it would not have been simple for the consumer.

If Google owns me, it's probably because I am in favor of what works.

"I'm glad to hear it," said Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, who was in New York last week. "We want a little bit of Google in many parts of your life."

Mission accomplished, at least on my desktop, but I asked Schmidt if I shouldn't be worried that I am putting all of my digital eggs in one multicolored, goofy-lettered basket.

"That depends on what you think of our company and our values," he said. "Do you believe we have good values?"

Schmidt seems nice enough, but I sometimes wonder if I will come to regret the easier, softer road I have chosen.

A record of my surfing lives on its servers for 18 months -- not by name, but still. Google continues to insist that my IP address is not me, but a motivated government with a subpoena in hand could find me, lots of me, on Google's servers.

Most data privacy experts would call me a fool to index my life into any one company so deeply, and diversification in all matters is just common sense.

Huber countered that I am free to come and go as I wish.

"The nice thing is that we don't force you to use only our stuff," he said. "It is not tied tightly together, and the content is all easily exportable.

"If you feel like we are letting you down, or you don't like our products or we are failing to innovate, you can pick up and go where you want."

But with video chat now enabled in my Gmail, how likely am I to click away?

Some people worry that Google will take over the world. Through the sins of competence and innovation, the company has quietly and efficiently surrounded me.

"That's our business model," Schmidt said.