What do Google and Dunder Mifflin have in common?

Paper Mills. No, Google isn't making a foray into the forest products and packaging industry. The company will obviously use the defunct paper mill to house a massive data center.

This is an unremarkable story unto itself, but to me, it represents a symbolic transition of old industry to new. There's also a tinge of irony here. A company that categorizes and delivers knowledge to people electronically replaces one that profited from the delivery of information through an anachronistic channel: the printed page. (If you don't think that paper is outdated, may I remind you that your are reading a blog on a computer and that Amazon just launched the Kindle 2 this week.)

More importantly, this story illustrates the merits of creative destruction. One could draw the conclusion from Stora Enso's press release that Google itself may be partly responsible for the mill's "persistent losses in recent years and poor long-term profitability prospects". Even so, Google offers society exponentially more value in return. As our economy falters and businesses fail, I hope that our leaders (and opinionators) carefully consider actions (and words) that may impede transformative process of creative destruction.

We may never know the next great American car company if we artificially extend the life of the incumbents. So when you see an empty paper mill or idle auto manufacturing plant, think not of jobs lost, but imagine the next great product or service from a company that will take over that space.

Just google it

The news of a Google-Yahoo merger was floated some time ago but recent news that the Justice Department has hired special counsel to review the details of the case should not be surprising; in fact, it is more than welcome. The common view of our generation seems to be that Google is an enlightened despot, free to conduct themselves as they see fit due to the ease they have fostered in our daily lives. In a sense, their ubiquity has forced us to grant the company free reign to monitor, and target, our habits. 

But no matter how well they treat employees, or their corporate idealism, Google is still a company and their bottom line is what matters most. This is as it should be but regulators cannot lose sight of it. I don't know whether a Google-Yahoo deal would imperil competition but any such unprecedented corporate adventurism in new media such as the internet should trigger caution and excitement at the same time. The Justice Department is doing the right thing by excruciatingly checking the facts of the case. The internet will never be completely dominated by a company. There is always something new and room for experimentation - that is its inherent beauty. But the internet is still a media domain and we must realize the extent to which complete advertising control can stifle the expansion, not creation, of new entities. Google may have been the best thing to happen in a lot of years, but that doesn't mean something better isn't around the corner. Let's not shut the door too soon.