But that's how most research funding works. The same is true if you get a government research grant - do what you want, but if they don't like your results, they are unlikely to fund you another round.
For example, if you say "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol", the government won't care what outcome you find/publish. They funded you because they want the truth to come out about the question you seek to answer. There are some topics where the government "has a dog in the fight" — but much of their research funding is for areas where they are truly agnostic.
Google, on the other hand, only funded research related to their business. So they had an agenda, and all the parties knew it.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have been able to fund this, or that this is any worse than other industry-funded research. Just that it seems some professors did not make the relevant disclosures, and there was a pretty strong incentive for professors not to bite the hand that feeds them.
Are you implying that government funds research when the topic isn't something they care about, or that Google only likes positive results?
Instead of accepting that anyone is an angel or devil, we should approach all results with a critical eye and push for reproducibility.
It's pretty simple. To equate the two, you'd have to say the USG only funds research that increases the size and scope of USG.
Well, I mean there is that whole thing about how federal funding cannot go to gun violence research. So there are absolutely types of research that the government not just passively, but actively attempts to prevent.
I'm not saying that Google is being a good guy here, but I also don't think you can so easily make the argument that the (US) government is any better.
Also, Google is largely funding CS research -- this isn't the kind of thing where there's a double blind study going on. It's usually work on a new algorithm or protocol or architecture or ... -- things that are constructive engineering tasks that can be replicated by others when the researchers' papers are published.
I think that's a somewhat idealistic view. From my reading (which may be out of date, the book was published in 1999), even the basic research funding from governments often has a technological goal in mind, and many of the savvier grant applicants know what that goal is.
This isn't true at all for NSF and NIH grants, FWIW (and "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol" is not at all the level of specificity of proposals, which is part of this).
It's cause for criticism about how they approve grants (null results are science, too), but it's also partly a natural result of having limited money and many many requests for it.
If you open a donut shop with it, you're probably commuting an act of fraud.
If you absolutely have to change the budget (does happen), you better have permission.