Google has announced the release of it own Windows based web browser called Chrome. Downloads are supposed to be available starting at 2 PM Eastern Time today, September 2, 2008. The announcement was made on Monday September 1 (Labor Day here in the US) after a comic explaining the process behind the design of the new browser was apparently leaked.

There are already a number pf articles and posts on this subject, but this eWeek Microsoft Watch post by Joe Wilcox titled "Google Eats Its Young" has some interesting observations on t he effect this may have on Google partners such as Mozilla and its Firefox browser. While I use Google as my primary interent search engine,I am concerned about the growth of the company and its dominance in the internet marketplace.

Despite Googles oft quoted "You can make money without Doing Evil" stance, we've seen the company give in to demands of the Chinese government. And if Microsoft's monopoly isn't a good thing, when does one company that is assuming an ever increasing dominance on the web become a monopoly? Apparently I share these and other concerns with Mr. Wilcox. 

Joe observes:

From the perspective of some Google search partners, Chrome is evil. For example, Mozilla generates most of its real revenue from that Google search box in Firefox's right-hand corner. Sure, end users can change the default search engine. But given Google's huge search share—61.9 percent in July, according to ComScore—the default is likely to remain the same. Google wants to keep that money it gives Mozilla and other browser developers.

Google has used other companies and technologies as a foil to the Microsoft juggernaut and they deserve kudo's for doing so. However, lets not lose sight of the fact that Google is a business and all of the nice sounding platitudes aside, when one company comes to dominate a segment of the market, it's the consumer that usually loses.

Time will tell whether or not this effort by Google will be successful, but I echo Joe's sentiments when he states:

How ironic if Google does to Firefox what Microsoft couldn't: Kill the browser. 

Anyone that has used a piece of software, signed up for a credit card or a cell phone, is well aware of the so called "license" or "service" agreements AKA End User License Agreements ("EULA") that providers impose for use of their product or service.

A piece of communality these "agreements" share is that they are usually very one-sided, with all of the benefits accruing to the service provider, while placing most, if not all, of the burdens on the consumer. Provisions dealing with choice of law and jurisdiction, mandatory and binding arbitration, attorney fees and costs only for the provider, as well as reduction in statue of limitation periods are just a few of the onerous provisions the consumer is forced to accept.This is no longer true at least in the State of Washington.

The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a consumer and against AT&T and it service agreement. The ars technica website has the full story here. This is truly a case of David vs. Goliath, with David taking down the giant with his sling and pebble.

In reaching its decision, the Washington Supreme Court looked at a number of issues including unconscionability and Federal Preemption. This Court determined that Washington State law was not preempted in this instance. In response to arguments that allowing this case to move forward in Washington would place a burden on AT&T to deal with individual state laws, the Court opined: