There are several things to say about this.

1. How much data was stolen?

First, exactly how big were the attacks, and what data may have been compromised either at Google or at the other companies where Google detected attacks? 

The announcement of the attacks in the Google blog says there was "theft of intellectual property from Google." The only "intellectual property" it actually mentions is a little info about the creation of Gmail accounts, such as the dates they were created and subject line, was compromised. Did the attackers get any other intellectual property from Google besides this info?

A Google spokesperson tells me, "So far we don't have any evidence of anything else" being taken. But phrase "so far" means they could still find more later. Also, the spokesperson says Google does not know what, if anything, may have been taken from or compromised at any of the other companies where it detected the attacks.

2. Should Google get rid of data sooner to protect privacy?

This shows that data is vulnerable, even when protected with Google's sophisticated safeguards. Google keeps data for nine months, but privacy and human rights advocates say it should be less and will certainly point to this example as a reason to cut the retention time.

But there's a dilemma here. On one hand, reducing the length of time that information is kept would reduce the amount of vulnerable info. 

Since Google announced "A new approach to China" on Jan 12, Google stock has dropped 1.6 percent, while its home-grown Chinese competitor, Baidu, has seen its stock gain 16 percent.

Here's the chart

This is going to be a great fight. The basic news is that Google has been detecting cyber attacks from China that includes a theft of "intellectual property." Google executives are so pissed off that they have decided to stop their self-censorship and to re-evaluate whether Google will remain there at all. It is highly likely it will not, because China will never accept an uncensored search engine.

David Pogue at the New York Times has found some fine print in the contract when you buy a Nexus One.

Apparently, if you get the subsidized ($180) phone with a two-year contract from T-Mobile, then end up canceling early, you have to pay an early termination fee to T-Mobile and an "equipment recovery" fee to Google. The combined fees could add up to more than just buying the unlocked version of the phone.

Nothing like a little British hyperbole to give us some perspective.

The Register says that "Google is the new Microsoft of the decade"

And here be the thinking, mateys.

The Background: "In the 1990s, Microsoft sullied the good name that it had started building in the 1970s by forcing OEMs to ship IE to kill Netscape..."

Oops. The Reg needs some older reporters. People with a memory going back further than 1996. Long before Netscape was even born, Microsoft killed off a whole industry of software companies -- Lotus, Borland, Software Publishing, Digital Research. It was supposedly tying products to its OS in the early 1990s and forcing PC makers to install that OS on ALL their machines or pay higher prices. The Justice Dept. and FTC went after Microsoft, but by the time they got around to doing anything the other companies were dead and newly-launched Netscape was the only company to defend. Well, young reporters are cheaper.

Google Evil #1. It now has its own Domain name Service, another "part of its ongoing effort to control just about everything you do on the net..

Uh, how does helping you register domain names "control" what you do? "No, we don't want you to use that domain name. Take this one instead." ? Yes, it give Da Google more info about you, but we'll deal with that in a sec.

Evil #2. Google tweaks its search algorithms, making it "a choke point for the majority of online ad dollars and traffic."

True. Da Google tweaks. But it's a non-government corporation. Nobody is forced to use it., and there is no evidence that Google is malicious or in any way tweaks the engine to its own advantage. In fact, if there were such evidence, people would flee Da Google faster than you can say "Let's switch to Bing!" We're sure Microsoft would be more honest and less self-serving than Google.

From the year 2000 to the year 2009 Google went from scoffed-at upstart startup to god of the Net Universe to the most evil thing to hit the Internet since Microsoft slapped Netscape around a few years ago.

Had you noticed that?

Here is some coverage of why Google is the new Microsoft. With my own commentary.

Greed is bad. Fear is bad. Google is good. 

(Wait. Hear me out.)