The value to Google - sure. But the market value of the exploit itself - the black market I think is a factor in that regardless of what Google offers.

The value of something is dictated by what _the market_ offers, and just because Google throws a lowball price because _they_ don't value it doesn't necessarily mean that the value of the exploit itself is as low as they dictate.

There will always be someone who would screw Google just for the love of the game, and if they got a better price from elsewhere, I don't see why _morality_ would really play that big of a role. It all comes down to incentives, and if Google doesn't incentivize doing the good thing enough, then someone _will_ incentivize them to do the bad thing just a bit more.

Your conflating capitalism with markets.

Markets are fundamental things and exist regardless of any kind of moral "should". Otherwise we wouldn't have people buying hard drugs or trafficing women.

If we abandon the moral "should", then the right move is to shake down Google along the lines I already said.

Google should, as a rational actor, pay out better for legitimate vulnerabilities that pose actual risk to them to avoid such a situation.

My beef here is that morality and ethics are only assigned to the researchers.

So what does that have to do with capitalism?