As for the hypothetical court case. Again, there's history for that as well.
What's your explanation then? The mighty Google with some of the best and brightest minds in the world...is consistently incompetent? That it goes into markets outside its core competence, dumps a ton of resources, and then again and again surrenders prematurely?
Really?
Seems that your theory sounds more ridiculous than mine (which btw is inpired by Thiel and Zero to One).
My explanation is that they want to make money on these projects and immediately cancel them when they fail to meet some lofty goals. Not that these projects are from-inception used as pawns in some abstract legal posturing.
I agree with you. That is what is happening. Where we part ways is why. The fact that it happens over, over, and over again, then for a company of that status, that's strategy. It's intentional. Else, we're suggesting that Google cannot learn from previous mistakes. That simply doesn't hold water.
As for the hypothetical court case. Again, there's history for that as well.
What's your explanation then? The mighty Google with some of the best and brightest minds in the world...is consistently incompetent? That it goes into markets outside its core competence, dumps a ton of resources, and then again and again surrenders prematurely?
Really?
Seems that your theory sounds more ridiculous than mine (which btw is inpired by Thiel and Zero to One).