It's certainly true that 'profit' does-not-infer 'value'. But nonetheless, I think they are adding value. Here's why i think that: A. Customer utility (for a

It's certainly true that 'profit' does-not-infer 'value'. But nonetheless, I think they are adding value. Here's why i think that: A. Customer utility (for a subset of customers) is higher for search results presented in the style of Sourcetool than in the style of Google. (i.e. Google isn't all things to all men - no shame in that). B. Those customers do not know about Sourcetool, but do know about Google. (market inefficiency = imperfect knowledge) So assuming this customer ultimately wants sourcetool style results, there are three steps to be taken: 0. Customers goes to www.google.com 1. Google refers them to Sourcetool 2. Source tool provides the desired services (even if that includes serving an ad) In this scenario, both Google and Sourcetool should capture the value associated with giving the customer what they want - they both played a part. I dont know if both parties are capturing value, but its certainly true that they both could. Google gets paid by the advertiser who places the ad served by AdSense, so even if Google's two transactions with Sourcetool are net negative, Google may well be coming out net positive with the inclusion of the transaction of the AdSense advertiser. Seems to me that Google should merely be setting is rev-sharing terms with Sourcetool to ensure that both parties capture value. tom saffell