Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) recently trading up $15.29 to $609.20.

GOOG is expected to report earnings per share (EPS) on October 18th. GOOG October at the money 580 straddle is priced at $32.10. GOOG October option implied volatility of 38 is above its 26-week average of 27 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

The Gap Inc. (NYSE: GPS) CEO Glenn Murphy hosted a meeting with analysts on October 5th.

Smith Barney says "Mr. Murphy is focused on making the company gets an adequate return on its investments. This includes a focus on the expense of the business. We suspect there will be continued focus on moderating the cost structure and assessing various cost components, including marketing. We think the real estate portfolio is under review." GPS over all option implied volatility of 31 is near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting flat price risk.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

In one of the first public attempts by Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) to give customers incredibly customized information, the web search leader is poised to build the strongest database yet of detailed human behavior. How does it do this? By storing web searches (and for news, video, etc.) and preferences for its customers. Then, it will take that information to build a model of each Google customer and use that expansive material to give customers advice on making important decisions about their own lives.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was heard saying, "The goal is to enable Google users to ask questions such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'" -- and that says it all. Google's aim is to be the first artificially intelligent and global network that "knows" about its customers from every angle and can suggest things to them on a personal and custom scale. Is Google becoming the Skynet of the Terminator films? Hardly, but the goal of the company is to enable the most relevant information and render it when needed. Right now, that realm sits squarely in web search, but is expanding rapidly.

Google has already showed (profitably, I might add) that if it can engage the customer in a non-intrusive way and suggest things (advertisements) that fit the customer, then the customer will respond ... and respond ... and respond. Will customers care that Google has so much personal information on their online habits? If it helps those customers be more productive and eases the load on life because of an "information-available-anywhere" type of approach, perhaps not.

Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) continue to turn up those collective noses every time the subject of "click fraud" comes up to bat. It's something all companies that bill ad partners for mouse clicks can't avoid, and the legions of unscrupulous hucksters who want to cost competitors marketing dollars for bogus clicks will not end any time soon. Google has made it a point of saying it has very sophisticated and proprietary systems to track the causes of click fraud and return ad spends to clients who believe they are victims.

Are paying customers satisfied with that promise? At an InterACT Conference today in San Francisco, a chief research scientist for Fair Isaac will say that 10% to 15% of clicks billed to Pay-Per-Click (PPC) advertisers that use Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) and other Internet portals are the result of fraudulent traffic. Now, this will be an interesting statement to forensically dissect, as in "how does he know that?"

Google will most definitely hear from ad partners who continue to maintain that they lose millions of dollars to worthless clicks (clicks that result in no actionable intention from the clicker). As such, Google's constant battle with the actual methodology and motives of those reporting significant levels of click fraud will again be front and center here. Is Fair Isaac inflating its estimates with an ulterior motive in tow? Google probably thinks that, as Fair Isaac sees a new "fraud prevention" business model ripe for exploit here. Or, does it?

At the company's annual meeting, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt told reporters that while the company will certainly consider larger deals, its primary focus will be on building its portfolio through small acquisitions, and that it's focused on acquisitions as a way to build its own portfolio rather than a reaction to competitive pressures.

The company currently acquires about one start-up per week, and sees acquisitions as a way to add to its stable of engineers. It also ruled out entering the Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ) sweepstakes.

I like this strategy: Many a great company have been ruined by big acquisitions, and very few have been built that way. Of course there are exceptions, but a strong focus on core businesses and complementary acquisitions is probably the best way for Google to grow.

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) reiterated what it has said for quite some time at its annual shareholders meeting yesterday: it isn't nearly as interested in large acquisitions (too late) as some think it is and likes buying small startup companies.

Add to that the propensity of Google management to want to "partner" with content sites on the web (and other places) instead of buying content companies, you've got the thrust of the meeting.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that recent large acquisitions from Google weren't done as a response to some competitive threat, but more to fill holes in Google's product portfolio. I think it's both -- Google is trying to compete better in the segments where it operates while establishing new advertising beachheads ("filling in product holes").

And no -- Google won't be buying Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ) or any other content company, according to Schmidt. Google co-founder Larry Page added to the discussion as well, and the general feel from Google's meeting for shareholders is that the company wants to partner with anyone who creates good content and who has an audience or can build one.

What does partnering solve for Google? Well, it lets the company sell advertising across every partnership and become -- as I've said many times before -- the largest advertising network the world has ever seen. And, Google will get a cut of every ad viewed, listened to or clicked on.

Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) continues to take no prisoners in the Internet advertising space race. It's just another day in the Google-verse, but today, the Internet search behemoth filed a response to Viacom Inc.'s (NYSE: VIA) recent lawsuit by stating that YouTube's activities are completely legal. Them's fightin' words, eh? Google CEO Eric Schmidt even said that Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube was a "negotiation tactic" -- and he's probably right on that.

Viacom's allegation that Google's YouTube uses digital technology to "willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale," was bound to catch the eye of the Google legal digerati, and some $200 million was even set aside when Google bought YouTube last year in anticipation of legal problems surrounding unauthorized videos being shared at the YouTube website. Google's YouTube does facilitate the sharing of copyrighted programs, but I continue to wonder why copyright holders go after the "channel" on which protected works are shared instead of the actual copyright infringer. Easy answer? Because Google is a huge and highly visible target and Joe Schmoe is not.

Google did say that is respects the importance of copyrights and goes above and beyond what is required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Google also says that it cooperates with holders of copyrights and immediately complies with requests to have unauthorized material removed from the site. Can it remove 100% of copyrighted, unlicensed material? So far, no technology can do that, so Google will have to fend off lawsuits like this in increasing numbers in the future, most likely.

Every time I see Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt talking at a press conference, investor meeting or industry trade show, I have to give the guy some credit -- he's a master as deflecting specific questions about Google's competitive strategy while appearing that he is really giving a solid answer.

Google's focus recently has been on acquisitions -- first YouTube last year then DoubleClick last week. Add to that the company's launch of its Docs & Spreadsheets online productivity applications last year and its upcoming Google Collaboration presentation software, and it looks like the company is taking a direct and visible stab at Microsoft's Office suite software, where the Redmond giant makes a ton of money.

Google's CEO insists that Google is not going to compete with Microsoft's Office software because it is too late for that -- which I see as subterfuge. Although Schmidt recently answered a question by saying that Google's online office application "doesn't have all the functionality, nor is it intended to have the functionality of products like Microsoft Office," one has to wonder what he's really thinking.

Let's see here:

• Google Gmail and Google Calendar (Microsoft Outlook)
• Google Docs (Microsoft Word)
• Google Spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel)
• Google Collaboration (Microsoft PowerPoint)
  

Now, even though all those Google programs are not meant to be replacements for much of the advanced functionality in Microsoft's Office products, Google's applications will work just fine for a lot of customers -- personal and business. I'm thinking Google is playing coy with all this, like it should. In other words, it's far from clueless.

After having read this Q&A with Google Inc.(NASDAQ:GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt, I am convinced that the company he leads still wants to become the largest advertising network in the world in all channels that it can, even though it was not mentioned in the interview at all. The largest question is how successful its ambitions can end up being outside the web search market. That's a billion-dollar question, my friends.

Google's Eric Schmidt talks quite a bit about how Google's "Google Apps" will take on a portion of the Microsoft Office crowd (in effect, becoming a larger competitor than it already is) along with how Google is going to use YouTube in the future for running advertising around certain socially-networked video files (not clips, which are limited in length).

When Schmidt says the following in response to Google being called a "one trick pony" by Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ:MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer, something has to be read into it: "But there are some new revenue models on the horizon. The most interesting is probably Google Apps, where we're already beginning to get some significant enterprise deals."

Will Google Apps really bring in that much enterprise revenue in the future? Unless Google gets quite a few large companies using it with a decent subscription model, I don't see Google Apps being anywhere near what Google pulls in with web search advertising. It probably does not need to be that way -- yet.

One thing is for sure -- Google is one of the better companies in recent memory that can say quite a lot about what it does and where it is going without spilling many beans on specific strategies.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt will be speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference in San Francisco today and with his company leading the way on many fronts, I was interested to see what Schmidt has to say.

So with that, the below liveblog will detail out the main points of what Schmidt talks about today. Insight into the future of the web and Google? You bet. Possible hints at where tech investors may want to look for parking their money? Possibly. An entertaining talk? Absolutely.

So, here we go. Remember to use the "Refresh" key on your web browser to refresh this page often, as updates will be coming every few minutes. All times below are in EST.

3:20pm -- Schmidt is talking about general technology issues to start -- but he picks up with a focus on mobile technology (the cellphone). It's interesting that Schmidt takes up his first focus as mobile technology -- like he has done many times before at quarterly conference calls and other investor conferences.

3:25pm -- Schmidt is talking about the prevalence of mobile technology and switches to how broadband is now becoming just as prevalent. He's interplaying the billions of mobile phone subscribers globally along with how broadband technology is now encompassing the mobile networks (HSDPA and EV-DO -- and beyond).

3:32pm -- the increasing number of data centers is now on Schmidt's lap as he talks steadily about how much data -- and how fast -- can be pumped to users anywhere around the world. TV, internet, fixed phone and mobile are the "four" things that most consumers will need now and in the short future. How do you find all the stuff you need on those mediums? Search, of course.

Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) is a company that likes to try and spearhead progressive change in the digital age we are all leaving in now. Google CEO, Dr. Eric Schmidt, likes to paint pictures of the future nternet and all that's involved with it, and this week he painted on heckuva doomsday scenario when his mental paintbrush drew a scary picture.

That picture? Those in control of the internet may be so scared of the misuse of personal information that they may stop at nothing to ensure they suffocate the web with stifling regulations as billions more around the world go online in the near future.

Schmidt explained that a small number of companies would become gatekeepers to the entire web, while forcing all internet users to interact in "highly regimented" ways. OK, I get his idea now -- the freedoms we as customers and users of the Internet enjoy now would be stifled in many ways by safeguards from paranoid gatekeepers that are intent on identity verification for all people, parties and transactions that take place over the web. Sounds a little cheeky, but I get what he was trying to say.

Right now, is the internet based on a set of self-governing rules and regulations? You bet it is -- for the most part. I can see that Schmidt's scenario might revolve hurting Google with its vaunted advertising revenue stream. Still, outside of that, I agree with him in that setting up a few large, global gatekeepers would invite instant corruption -- like anything with just a few entities in charge almost always invites.

Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) has cut a deal with British broadcaster BSkyB to provide video programming and services like e-mail for the television firm's website. More important, Google video content will appear on BSkyB programming which runs through set-top boxes that store customer data. Google Adsense program for targeting advertising would be utilized to help serve relevant commercials.

The alliance joins Google with Rupert Murdoch, who controls the British company, which is run by his son.

Google stated that the deal was important to the search company. "This is a really, really big deal for us," said Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and chief executive. "If it works, it will become our most lucrative deal from the get-go."

Indeed, that may well be so. Set-top box technology is employed in both satellite and cable deployments around the world. If Google's targeting tech allows ads to be more accurately served to consumers based on behavior, it would be a significant break-through for the TV advertising industry.

With newspaper and radio buying services already in place, Google goes after the TV.

Douglas McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG), made an appearance at the Web 2.0 Conference yesterday.

So why did he shell out $1.65 billion to buy YouTube? Might it be the market share? Technology? Strategic fit? A move into the next phase of advertising?

No. The reason from Schmidt: "Because we liked them."

The next big question: What about litigation exposure? Is it a problem? Did Google reserve $500 million for possible litigation?

Schmidt: No.

But he did admit that things were a bit "complicated." But, hey, he likes the company, right?

Finally, there was a question about Microsoft: might Google be going after the software giant's Office Suite?

This does seem like a reasonable question. After all, Google bought an online word processor, has built a spreadsheet and recently bought a collaboration tool, JotSpot.

Schmidt: No.

Huh? Is he kidding?

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.

When Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt joined the Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) board in late August, people hoped that his presence would result in an even more MAC-friendly Google than it already was. Earlier this week, the official Google Mac blog was launched.

The blog will help all MAC enthusiasts easily learn about and find Google's new products and services made especially for their lot. The blogs invites visitors to "watch this blog to keep up with the latest about everything Google is doing to support Mac users."

It's about time Google's mission statement was applied to the MAC universe:

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Maybe Eric Schmidt's mission on the Apple board should be:

"Schmidt's mission is to organize all the the world's MACs and iPods and make them universally accessible and useful."

As for the blog, it has recruited some of the best and most passionate Mac enthusiasts (why'd they leave me out?) for a Mac Engineering team. Look for more collaboration between the two kings of Silicon Valley.

Google shares closed up today to end the trading day at $427.44, an increase of $0.94 or 0.22% over Wednesday's close. With the Office 2.0 convention happening in San Francisco this week, I mused today on how more and more of the things we do every day in computing have shifted to the web browser from the local desktop.

But will the Office suite move as well? I highly doubt this, unless Internet connectivity -- high speed to boot -- becomes so completely ubiquitous that our apps and data are always at hand, whether we're connected to the net or not.

Some comments have agreed with me, and I feel pretty strong that although may things will shift to the web -- that are not already there -- many applications most of us use every day simply will stay local. The network *is* the computer, but only when the network is available. But, on that front, a rather humorous piece with a smidgen of insight came in today as I enthusiastically pored over who is the bigger moron -- Mark Cuban or Google CEO Eric Schmidt. What's your take?

So, is Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt a moron? Charlie Cooper over at CNET ponders this question with great flair and also brings up a person whose blog I've been following for quite some time -- Mark Cuban. Cuban has been on record now -- many times, in fact -- saying that any company that buys YouTube is completely off their rocker.

And then, just about this time last week, vicious rumors started swirling like Midwestern tornadoes that Google was in fact in the process of acquiring the web's largest social video-sharing site. But, it's one rife with copyright problems that have been put a little under control, but not enough to satisfy Cuban -- and many others, for that matter.

Does Google see the future of the web with non-text and non-graphic interactions? Apparently it sees something, but even spending $1.65 billion in stock is just a small touch for Google and its war chest of cash. The purchase price was small, all things considered, but it must prove its value to GOOG shareholders in the years ahead.

After reading Cooper's column though, I couldn't help but be struck with a rather interesting similarity between what Cuban did over six years ago when he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo! for over $5 billion. This has allowed Cuban to cash out handsomely, but was one of many idiotic mistakes made during the height of the dot-com boom when billion-dollar deals were floating around like crazy (deals that would later evaporate).

Perhaps YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley had this same mentality and decided to "cash out" of YouTube and leave a Internet bellwether holding the bag? Interesting parallel here, since I see many similarities between today's web environment and the one of 1999. So, who's the bigger moron in this situation -- Cuban or Schmidt? Only time will tell.