This is a multifacited issue, and there is, as Google says, going to be good coming from this.

One thing I wonder about, and honestly can't answer. From a purely business standpoint, which is better? When China becomes free -- and it will, will the goodwill given to those who fought the fight to make it free make up for the early market share gained by collaborators?

And what about "fighting collaborators" as your post suggests is the real role of Google?

I would like to hope so. That it is better to be Rosa Parks than the bus driver who was just following the law. To be Edward R. Murrow and CBS instead of Senator McCarthy and the people who didn't fight him.

Sometimes it's true. Sometimes (such as companies that collaborated with the Nazis or even used slave labour) it seems to not be. In many ways I think it may even be sometimes worth it to punish the later generation people at Ford, BMW, Bayer, Diamler and others, even though the modern people didn't do anything, they're just living off the benefits of it. On the other hand I'm usually wary of any post-generational punishments, much better to figure things out in the same generation. We would do it to send the message that "You will never gain more than temporary advantage from doing this. In the end, you will regret it."

Though even this is not enough. Athletes use steroids even though it seems in the end they are often caught and shamed. The temporary success seems enough.

I would like it to be clear that fighting is the right choice from a business sense, because then we would not have to worry about our business choices and our ethical ones putting us at odds.