MEMO to Jason

July 24, 2010 A.D.

Greetings Jason,

Many thanks for your willingness to help with my complaint against Google, Inc. I truly would like to help with your graduate school expenses, and a fair and equitable solution would certainly put me in a position to contribute to a scholarship fund, so you can concentrate on academic work during your grad school years.

The enclosed documentation explains why I did not save an exact copy of Google’s original $10 Million Offer as published on the Internet in September of 2008: I was in a public library at Spokane Community College, and I had no reason to suspect, at that time, that Google’s Offer was not bona fide. I trusted Google back then, but I don’t trust them now. The enclosed documentation explains some of the many reasons why I no longer trust Google’s management.

The young aspiring journalist I mentioned to you -- Amanaa Rendall -- did locate what she thought were some of the original Terms and Conditions, and I did reply to each point in some detail, in response to her request for same. That documentation is enclosed.

See, in particular, my discussion of “fraud in the inducement”. The legal meaning of that phrase is well defined in law dictionaries. It means “misleading another party as to the facts upon which he will base his decision to act.” I believe I have already proven that Google committed fraud in the inducement both before and after I submitted my idea for Gigabit Internet Access, back in September 2008.

I also believe it is important to examine the wider context of my complaint, rather than to focus on isolated sentences in Terms and Conditions, that may or may not be correct copies of the originals. My reason for this belief arises from other cases, and investigations, which have been brought against Google, Inc. in recent months, not simply because of their mistreatment of people like me who submitted ideas in direct response to Google’s published Offer and Call for Submissions.

Perhaps the most serious is the criminal investigation which is now underway into Google’s use of “Street View” to sniff WiFi hotspots. According to reports I have read on the Internet, lawyers and staff for the 37 States which have joined that investigation, have confirmed specific intent in Google’s Patent Application: their software was deliberately enhanced to make it possible for their wireless devices to “listen” to WiFi signals as the Street View cars passed by. That smacks of specific intent to violate privacy laws.

In terms of the “Project 10 to the 100^th” in particular, please be aware of the observations which I have saved from the protest “Blog” site I mentioned to you. As I recall, Google promised to announce 100 finalists and put them up for a public vote by Internet users. Instead, they published a list of 16 broad “categories”.

Also, Google promised to assemble an advisory board to select 5 “winners”. To my knowledge, the latter never happened either. As one comment alleges, Google “doesn’t even promise that the board will choose the five most popular categories”.

Lastly, by looking at the enormous number of proposals which Google, Inc. did receive in response to their published plans to implement Gigabit Internet Access, I don’t think there is any question now that my Submission was a great idea. According to reports I have recently witnessed on the Internet, almost 1,100 municipalities and 200,000 individuals submitted proposals to participate in the roll-out of “Google Fiber for Communities” (the name Google has chosen for Gigabit Internet Access). Does Google intend to violate privacy even more?

If there is any additional information you need, please try to search the Internet yourself for it. When I did look at what Google is now saying about their Request for Submissions, it was obvious to me that they have made significant changes to their original plans.

But, rather than to hear about those changes from me, I feel it will have more impact if you witness yourself the serious criticism which other submitters and other observers have been willing to publish on the Internet, in pointed objections to what Google has now done, and to what Google has now failed to do.

By their actions, they have obviously selected Gigabit Internet Access as a “winner” but they have not paid me any part of their original $10 Million Offer. And, I certainly don’t buy the argument that awards were intended only for “organizations”: the Supreme Law Firm is an organization, whether they like it or not, and we use the Internet heavily to build and maintain the Supreme Law Library. Both are well established trade names, both on and off the Internet. That point about “organizations” is mostly moot, anyway, because Google has never announced awards of any part of the original $10 Million to any “winning organizations” either (except Google itself!)

In conclusion, I believe it’s easy to prove that Google’s original $10 Million Offer was merely a ruse to entice submitters, like me, into sharing potentially profitable proposals, from which Google management could pick and choose without ever paying anyone else a single penny for their “winning” ideas. By their subsequent actions, Google always intended to “harvest” ideas with the most profit potential for Google, Inc., the corporation.

Thus, it’s painfully obvious that the funds they have spent to date on “Google Fiber for Communities” have already far exceeded $10 Million; but, not one single penny of their original $10 Million Offer was ever awarded to me for submitting that original idea in the first place.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul A. Mitchell

Paul A. Mitchell, Instructor,

Inventor and Systems Development Consultant