Posted by John Burchett, State Policy Counsel

Last year, we told you about a law passed by the Utah state legislature that essentially prohibited search engines like Google from allowing trademarks from being used as keywords to trigger ads. As we wrote at the time, this law ran counter to the precedent of federal trademark law, which has consistently upheld comparative advertising as being good for consumers, competition and free speech.

So if a department store like Macy's wanted to advertise that they sell Nike shoes, under the Utah law they would not have been able to use the term 'Nike' to trigger an ad for their store. Or if Avis wanted to announce a sale, they couldn't use the keyword "Hertz" to trigger ads for people searching for rental cars.

Although the Utah law had not yet been enforced, it represented a big potential problem for consumers and advertisers alike. Consumers would have been prevented from seeing the kind of comparative ads that help them get the best deal possible. And businesses (including small businesses) would have been prevented from advertising products that they sell. For example, if Cole Sport in Park City wanted to advertise that they were running a huge end of season sale on K2 skis, the Utah law would have prohibited them from doing so.

The law also would have hurt free speech, with citizens being unable to run ads in protest of a certain company's business practices, for example.

Fortunately, the Utah legislature amended the bill this week and removed the provisions of the law which prohibited this type of keyword advertising. We applaud in particular Utah Sen. Dan Eastman, who led the efforts to make sure Utah continued to allow competition to thrive online.

Posted by John Burchett, State Policy Counsel

The nation's governors converged on Washington this weekend for their '08 winter meeting, making it a good time for us to take stock of some of our ongoing partnerships with state governments throughout the country. We've partnered with seven states so far to help them open up their government websites to outside search engines, and through the Climate Savers Computing Initiative we've taken a leading role in helping states to reduce energy consumption.

One of our most gratifying and exciting ventures, however, has been our work helping state governments to address some of their most pressing emergency management and homeland security needs with Google Earth Enterprise.

In recognition of our efforts, yesterday the National Governors Association presented Google with its second annual Public-Private Partnership Award, which recognizes companies that have partnered with a governor's office to implement a project that positively affects a state's citizens. Google was nominated by Governor Bob Riley for our work in partnership with the state of Alabama on the Virtual Alabama project.

The first system of its kind in the country, Virtual Alabama combines the technology of Google Earth Enterprise with the state's aerial photography, imagery, and other data, providing government employees across the state with the common operational picture necessary for emergency preparedness and disaster management operations. Or, as Alabama Department of Homeland Security Director Jim Walker put it, "This tool is going to save a firefighter's life in Alabama."

Posted by John Burchett, State Policy Counsel

While we know that the Internet allows people and organizations to operate much more efficiently, the reality is that personal computers, servers and data centers use too much energy. Right now, the average desktop computer is only 50% energy efficient and most servers waste 30% of the energy they use. Typical industry data centers also waste huge amounts of energy on cooling and backup power.

As we at Google looked at how to cut the amount of energy we consume, it became clear that the problem is largely not technological (it's currently possible to make more efficient computers). The problem is due mostly to a lack of a market for high efficiency equipment. Manufacturers would make more efficient equipment if they could be sure that enough people would pay the slightly higher cost (somewhere around $20-$30 extra per personal computer).

So, in a twist on the famous "Field of Dreams" line, Google and Intel led an effort to build a market for high efficient computing equipment, so that manufacturers would come. We created the Climate Savers Computing Initiative (CSCI) earlier this year, and more than 100 major corporations, environmental groups, universities and other large IT purchasers have joined the initiative and agreed to buy Energy Star 4.0 rated equipment. Participants have also agreed to employ better power management methods to reduce energy usage of existing computing systems. By 2010, we hope this effort will lead to a 50% reduction in power consumption for member organizations.

After working for years in state government, I know that governors around the country are aggressively looking for ways to reduce energy consumption and explore new solutions on climate change. Earlier this week, the co-chairs of the National Governors Association's energy task force, Governors Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota and Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas, not only agreed to have their states sign on to the initiative, but also to recruit other states to join as well. Minnesota and Kansas state governments buy over 8,000 computers a year. Imagine the impact this program can have if we get all 50 states to join.

When I came to Google six months ago to work on state policy issues I had no idea that I would be involved in a project that would make a such a big dent in energy usage. For me it is just one more example of why I like my job so much.

Posted by John Burchett, State Policy Counsel

I'm excited about a new partnership that Google announced yesterday with the State of Michigan -- for two reasons. Not only will this partnership help make the online information and services provided by the state's government more accessible to its citizens through Google and other search engines (something everyone can support), but it also benefits residents of my home state (and where, coincidentally, I worked before joining Google two months ago).

As part of our alliance with Michigan, we've helped state government agencies implement what's called the Sitemap Protocol, which enables Google and other search engines that support the protocol (including Microsoft and Yahoo) to more comprehensively access and index the pages of their websites, specifically records in large online databases, making them visible in search results.

For example, Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test scores for hundreds of schools spanning multiple years currently reside in over 25,000 documents. The new partnership will allow a user to find the results for the school name and test year, eliminating multiple searches requests and clicks. It will also help make accessible information about child day care centers and homes, workers compensation appellate decisions, fish stocking, Michigan school report cards, lane closures on Michigan roads, and more.

Michigan is the fifth state we've partnered with in this effort to help Google users better access their government online, joining Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia. In the past, governments fulfilled their obligation to make information accessible by providing a document reading room or public notices in the newspaper. Today, the pioneering efforts of some states are bring citizens closer than ever to government -- literally one search away.

As luck would have it, I'm actually in the Wolverine State today, preparing for the National Governors Association meeting here in Traverse City. Our CEO Eric Schmidt will be here this weekend, and we'll be spreading the word about this issue.

Posted by Adam Kovacevich, Manager, Global Communications and Public Affairs

Remember the Coke and Pepsi TV ads from the "cola wars" of the 80s and 90s, when the cola giants sponsored taste tests, hired rock stars, and spent a lot of time arguing that one formula of sugar water was better than the other? How about the Bounty paper towel ads, in which one towel picked up what appeared to be a gallon of liquid spills while the competitor's towel seemed to have the absorption capacity of a rock? Though these comparative ads are good for consumers, promote competition, and symbolize free speech, Utah last week passed a misguided law attempting to prevent consumers from seeing these kind of ads online.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the law -- which was passed and signed into law without any hearings or notice -- would "allow trademark owners to prevent their marks from being used as keywords to generate comparative ads. If this law takes effect, a company like Chevrolet couldn't purchase 'sponsored link' space on the Google results page when a user types 'Toyota' as part of a search query -- at least if the latter term is registered in Utah as an 'electronic registration mark.'" But don't just take EFF's word for it. Utah's own general counsel told legislators that the bill was probably unconstitutional because it would disrupt interstate commerce. (Constitutional Law 101: the regulation of interstate commerce is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress.)

The law clearly runs counter to both trademark law and capitalism, both of which embrace comparative advertising. For years, federal courts have upheld the right to use trademarked terms in comparative ads. And competition -- which generally helps lower prices and benefits consumers -- is fueled in part by companies being able to use advertising to draw contrasts with their competitors.

Aside from its obvious constitutional flaws, the bill presents other problems. It lets individuals and companies register "electronic registration marks" even if they don't actually own the trademark. So this new law so it could cause a free-for-all in which any individual or company could claim another company's trademark as their own "electronic registration mark." Maybe the Utah legislature was looking for ways to create a 21st century gold rush.

The bill also isn't limited to online uses. Any use of a trademark in connection with comparative advertising would be a violation -- including a supermarket checkout coupon that gives you a discount for Huggies next time if you bought Pampers this time. It also does away with two critical components of federal trademark law -- that a trademark be protectable and that infringement occurs only when there is a likelihood of confusion. That could open the door for generic or descriptive terms (i.e., "water," "food," "supermarket") to be registered, preventing anyone from using them in connection with advertising.

Finally, this law could also infringe on free speech, by preventing an advocacy group from placing an ad in protest of a company's business practices.

The new law is very likely to be challenged in court, and we believe it will be struck down. We'll certainly be working with other Internet companies to help educate officials in Utah about the consequences of this bad piece of legislation.