Too Innovative to Fail?

The headline for Sam Diaz’ latest post to the Googling Google blog on ZDNet is:

In this economy, is a Google antitrust probe "un-American?"

In the body of the post, he provide somewhat more extended framing of the question:

Is it un-American for the government to launch a probe of one of the leading companies in an industry that has the potential to put the U.S. back on the global map?

The argument in a nutshell is that investigation impedes innovation, and the case of the impact of investigation on Microsoft is given as the primary warrant.  It thus seems as if the “too big to fail” formula, according to which the financial sector was given a pass on its dubious practices while allowing a continuation of lax regulation, has been translated to “too innovative to fail.”

Put another way, this article is a penetrating look at the consequences of investigation on technology businesses;  but there is no mention of one of my favorite topics, which is the investigation of the consequences on an innovation before it gets deployed.  Yes, this post is clearly cheerleading for the technology sector;  and, if it is just a blog, then it is under no obligation to speak for the rest of us.  For that matter the author is under no obligation to use the noun “consequences;”  so it is no surprise that he doesn’t.  However, it is a nice reminder that “the rest of us” matter no more to the technical sector than they do to the financial sector.