Even as Google launched its own browser, it's continued to funnel millions of dollars to Mozilla, the nonprofit maker of Firefox. Almost 90 percent of Mozilla's revenues — last reported at $75 million in 2007 — have come from a search-referral deal in which Google pays Mozilla when Firefox users perform searches in the browser's toolbar. Shortly before Google launched Chrome, Mozilla and Google renewed the deal through 2011.

But a Google-eyed tipster tells us that Google is looking for ways to cut its support of Mozilla sharply. This has top Mozilla engineers spooked, and several of them have popped by the Googleplex to interview for jobs there.

It makes sense that Google would want to support its own Chrome Web browser. And yet bullying a nonprofit would seem to clash with Google's "don't be evil" motto. Perhaps "don't lose money" has become more important.

Mozilla hasn't filed financials since its 2006 report, when it just squeaked by a rule that allowed it to avoid disbursing more of the money that has gushed into its coffers from a lucrative search-referral deal with Google.

Since nonprofits like Mozilla are allowed to file their finances on a downright sluggish schedule, it will be some time before we know what's really happening with the browser maker. But it has been holding onto a large chunk of change just in case it faced a challenge over its nonprofit status, and we've heard that the latest review of Mozilla's finances didn't hold good news. Wouldn't that have made for a much interesting conversation than whether Baker considers herself a geek sex symbol?

(Photo via Mother Jones)

85 percent of Mozilla's $67 million in revenues in 2006, the most recent year reported, came from Google, it's true. But Sullivan seems to think this is some kind of bribe, with Mozilla picking Google as the search engine because the company is showering the browser maker with cash.

Utter nonsense. Google pays Mozilla a cut of the revenue generated when Firefox users conduct Google searches. In Asia, Mozilla defaults to Yahoo, not Google, because Yahoo has a larger user and advertiser base in the region, making its searches more lucrative. It's all about the money, sure. But why shouldn't it be?

Mozilla could open up Firefox as Sullivan suggests. The end result would be a lot of annoyed users who have to go through an extra step as they pick their search engine, which would likely be Google anyway. Google doesn't need to bribe Mozilla; the superior economics of its business do the work for Google.

This, by the way, is also why nothing has come of the perpetual rumors that Google is working on its own browser. It could easily build one. But why bother? As long as Google's search ads are more profitable than the competition, there's no reason for Mozilla to send Firefox users elsewhere. A Google browser might hurt adoption of Firefox, which would do more to lower the number of Google searches than Google's own browser would do to raise it. Build a browser? Sure, Google might get to that after it finishes shooting itself in the foot.

Here's something I wonder: Why does no one ask the same question about Apple's Safari browser, which likewise defaults to Google? Google must be paying Apple a considerable amount of money every year, though not enough to break out in its financial reports; Google CEO Eric Schmidt serves on Apple's board, as does Al Gore, who is a senior advisor to Google. Apple has a monopoly on the browser installed on Mac OS X computers, and makes it harder to switch the default search engine; I don't hear anyone calling for Apple to free its browser search.

Which makes me think people like Sullivan are picking on Firefox not because they believe in open browser search, but because Mozilla, owned by a nonprofit, is a more easily pressured target. A familiar stratagem of attention-seeking activists. Let's not pretend that calling for open search is anything but a tactic for generating false controversy. And let's not pretend that Mozilla is doing anything except trying to make money.

That was Jamie Zawinski, the Netscape engineer who helped "free the lizard" by open-sourcing Mozilla, even though he apparently offered up his SoMa nightclub, DNA Lounge, for the event. Zawinski did, however, build a time capsule of the early Web — including early iterations of the Mosaic browser and website — for those of you who couldn't make the party but would like to wallow in the nostalgia. Who did show up? Dozens who RSVP'd after Valleywag's calendar listing yesterday, forcing Mozilla to open up the bar when the drink tickets ran out. Photos, including our own Owen Thomas making nice with Anglosexual Flickr engineer Cal Henderson, by Randal Alan Smith.

I enjoyed your article the other week about the sort of cars Firefox bug fixes buy. Today I got cut off by an Audi S4 with the numberplate "S4ZILLA". I stopped by the Mozilla parking lot later and what do you suppose I saw...

I'm largely to blame for several innovations on the web including, cookies, the blink tag, server push and client pull, HTTP proxying, proxy authentication, HTTP byte ranges, HTTPS over SSL, and encouraging the implementation of animated GIFS into the browser.