But in the case of Google, it's pretty clear that they are constantly pushing the boundaries, sometimes doing original research, and creating new knowledge as they go. So, no, I don't think you could say that everything they know is in "the literature".
If I had to break it down percentage wise, my subjective feeling would be that it's something like 90% "broadly known stuff" and "10% unique in-house knowledge", or something along those lines.
At the least, I would urge you not to ascribe god-like / superhuman powers/knowledge to the engineers at Google, or Facebook, or Yahoo, or Microsoft or Amazon or whoever. They're all working off the same core CS principles everyone is, they're just smart people working on hard problems and sometimes they discover some new interesting things. But, if you, as a smart person, work on hard and interesting problems, you're also going to discover some new and interesting things as well.
for example: building high scale service. where you can learn to build something like that?
A lot of knowledge about building "web scale" services is moving so fast that it's not necessarily in dead tree books, but that doesn't mean it isn't documented somewhere. That said, a lot of good stuff is in dead tree books. Try looking at http://highscalability.com/ for example, and peruse the "real world architectures" section, then look at their Amazon AStore for a good list of useful books. http://astore.amazon.com/possiboutpos-20
But if you want the very latest developments on various technologies - load balancers, web servers, big-data stuff, databases, a lot of the newest stuff is going to be on mailing lists, in blog posts, web pages and the like. Books tend to lag.
More stuff ends up in journal articles, but about a year or so behind the actual work, and at a level of detail which is often problematic to reproduce. You typically have to treat it as a reverse engineering problem - but once you know the core ideas, that's often possible.
Then there's the mountain of "trade secrets" which never get published anywhere. A lot of compelling work in e.g. graphics falls under this case - although you might see a demo and overview at SIGGRAPH.
Publishing tends to be a net positive for serious commercial research work, even if the release has to be delayed. It's a solid process for documenting internal knowledge. It's also one of the main things that's going to interest other researchers in working for you.
- knowing that XYZ is the case, knowledge of facts, or "propsitional knowledge" as a philosopher might call it - probably a heck of a lot of Google engineers' knowledge of this type (except stuff which is personal to them, like what they did last tuesday or the content of some private source code) is in books.
- knowing how to do XYZ or "performative" or "procedural knowledge" - this sort of knowledge you can try and convey in literature, but often some lived experience is necessary to acquire it. Practising martial arts for 20 years might produce a different order of "knowing kung fu" than reading about it without the practice (Neo notwithstanding, the lived experience was artificially implanted there.)
I don't know, but I'd guess the knowledge you're impressed by is largely of the second type.
Any engineering firm can develop a world-class knowledge base. But, that involves an engineering process, like starting projects with statements of work and conducting internal engineering reviews at certain milestones (all documented in whitepapers), not just by creating a Trello card or JIRA issue.