Levinson quits Google's board
Updated 7:00am PST Tuesday with response from FTC chairman and comment about no other directors left on both boards.
Another executive with ties to both Apple and Google is leaving one company's board of directors.
Arthur Levinson, former chairman of Genentech, has resigned from Google's board of directors, effective immediately, Google said Monday. A member of Google's board since 2004, Levinson has also served on Apple's board since 2000.
In early August, Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple's board of directors.
No specific reason was given for Levinson's exit, but there likely was some degree of pressure to leave one of his two board roles behind. With government probes and competition heating up between Apple and Google, juggling jobs on both company boards had turned into a hot-button issue.
In May, the FTC opened an investigation reportedly to determine if serving on both Apple and Google boards was a violation of antitrust law. Schmidt's August resignation from Apple's board came amid calls for him to resign. At the time, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that as Google enters more of Apple's core business, Schmidt would have had to recuse himself from too many meetings due to conflicts of interest.
Levinson's resignation appeared to please the FTC, prompting its chairman Jon Leibowitz to issue a statement.
"Google, Apple, and Mr. Levinson should be commended for recognizing that overlapping board members between competing companies raise serious antitrust issues and for their willingness to resolve our concerns without the need for litigation," said Leibowitz. "Beyond this matter, we will continue to monitor companies that share board members and take enforcement actions where appropriate."
With Levinson's departure from the Google board, no other individuals on a director level are serving on the boards of both Google and Apple.
Apple and Google have found themselves in the midst of conflict lately. The FCC is currently investigating if and why a Google Voice app for the iPhone was given a thumbs-down by Apple, triggering a he-said, she-said squabble between the two companies.
In July, Apple also restricted Google's Latitude mapping program, allowing it as a Web-based app rather than a native iPhone app.
Google is also trying to become a player in the operating system arena, though it's hardly in a position to compete with Apple at this point. Google's Android OS is targeted to the smartphone, while its proposed Google Chrome OS will battle for a space on the desktops and laptops.
In a statement Monday, Schmidt praised Levinson's tenure on Google's board. "Art has been a key part of Google's success these past five years, offering unvarnished advice and vital counsel on every big issue and opportunity Google has faced," Schmidt said. "Though he leaves as a member of our Board, Art will always have a special place at Google."
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
How many more board members of Google are also board members on the Apple board? Any?
The fact Apple and Google are now competing in the mobile phone market is a conflict and that's why both Schmidt and Levinson have stopped being on both boards.That's the whole point of the resignations.
If you don't want to get ripped off, don't buy products from Apple, and dont do business with Apple.
Everything apple does is fraudulent and aimed at tricking people and stealing people's money.
They blatantly BRIBE judges, and court staff, as I discovered when I took their head crook Steve Jobs to Palo Alto state court. Apparently Steve Jobs does not have to show up to court even if he has been legally served, because he is a crook with a lot of money.
I know there were four paragraphs of your thoughts above, but that was the only thing even remotely worth pondering in the whole post.
I could be cocky and state that the next decade will made by a revolution in Mathematical predictive complexity and new research of greater physics understanding. The reality however is more complex as first the world of Industry has to deal with the transition stage.
Simply skipping from the Silicon IC over to a crystal based quantum Data processing system that uses the best molecular understanding from man that can zap a new world into being is simply not realistic as a single step or something that can be done in a few small steps.
What is realistic is that more layers in five years can probably be added to the IC and science technology will be needed to regulate the energies given off by such devices.
That many will try and fail to step beyond the the standard IC before good progress is made.
So the truth is that what we have needs to be made best use of and that there needs to be enough shroud investors and investments in innovation at the same time to make sure that during a period of difficulties we get over the hurdles as smoothly as possible.
It will be tough no doubt but its key to remember that if we can make the best with what can be done today and invest well in the future we can do well. The Silicon IC has made economics easy just as much as moving beyond it over the long term is hard. We cannot afford to miss innovation we cannot afford to lose or miss good opportunities for the economy.
The new decade its near now may many good dreams come true.
- by aintnorainbowdorothy October 12, 2009 5:27 PM PDT
- Actually, as a former California resident, now a much happier resident of another, there are state courts in California for each county, just as in most if not all other states. There are also county courts, city courts, (or municipal courts). Therefore Palo Alto would have a state court there. It is in California and therefore deserves one. If a county is big enough, or has enough people, there will be state courts in various cities in that county. Not all courts are state courts and not all courts are state courts. Look it up in your encyclopedia (probably Wikipedia) and read all about Federal, State and Local courts. In fact just go to your favorite search engine and enter the words 'states courts' (the words don't have to be capitalized).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)There's your answer. Palo Alto is a city in California in one of its 56 counties. Therefore, and because it is in a large and highly populated county. it would have its own state court, even if it was a branch of the state court of that particular county.