Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government Microsoft The Courts News

Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case 177

Posted by Zonk from the friend-of-the-court-indeed dept.
Rob writes "Computer Business Review magazine is reporting that Google has filed papers with the US district judge overseeing Microsoft's compliance with its 2002 antitrust settlement, outlining why it believes it has a special interest in helping to ensure Microsoft remains in compliance. The judge has declined Google's assistance. From the article: 'Google had complained that the search engine built into Vista constituted "middleware" under the terms of the antitrust settlement and that Microsoft was therefore extending its desktop monopoly into a new market. While Microsoft insisted Google's complaint is "without merit" it did agree in late June to make a number of changes to its Vista search engine with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 to give rival desktop search software, including Google Desktop, a more level playing field.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case More

Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case

Comments Filter:

  • And how is OSX Spotlight any different? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eyah....TIMMY ( 642050 ) * on Friday July 06, 2007 @01:57PM (#19770373)
    Oh yeah, Spotlight [apple.com] just from a small company out in Cupertino. Nothing to worry about.
    Don't get me wrong, TFA is quoting the antitrust case and I think MSFT should open their search engine but I think we should not forget they're not the only ones out there to embed "functionality" in their OS. You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows.

    • Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:03PM (#19770445) Homepage Journal
      The difference is that the 'small' company in Cupertino, CA, is not a convicted monopolist. The court in question ruled that Microsoft created and abused an illegal monopoly in the computer operating system business. In fact, by embedding Internet Explorer into Windows, they effectively killed Netscape. That's why they are barred from embedding the functionality of other software markets into their OS and Apple most definitely is not. Google is just saying that this behavior is identical to its previous behavior and that they should also be barred from doing it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MontyApollo ( 849862 )
        I never understood the whole Netscape thing. The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free, then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.

        I understood the concern about MS forcing vendors to bundle Office if they wanted a good deal on Windows and all that, but the Netscape issue always was the one that made the news. I think a lot of average people tended

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by larkost ( 79011 )
          A little more detail in this case would help illuminate why the guy was so angry. He made an agreement with Microsoft that in return for him licensing Spyglass Mosaic to them to be transformed into Internet Explorer that they would give him a fee and then a percentage of the profits. THey then bundle it with the OS and thus argued that they did not owe him any profits. It was a very dishonest thing for Microsoft to do, and they eventually settled for a relative pittance (after burying the guy's lawyers in c

          • Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different? (Score:4, Informative)

            by MontyApollo ( 849862 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:23PM (#19771563)
            I never heard that part before, but it is possible he just made a bad deal and/or had poor lawyers advising.

            I was in a similar boat once. Years ago (when I was like 20 or 21) I created some shareware, and this software company contacted me and wanted to sell it. I signed an exclusive contract in return for royalties. They suggested I would make around $30K based on how well their other products sold. Once I signed, I never heard from them again. I think their only purpose was just to remove a potential competitor from the marketplace.

            In Hollywood, they say never sign a deal for a percentage of the profits because the bookkeepers always make sure there is never a profit.

            This type of behavior may be pretty common in the business world, and I suppose you have to be sure and protect yourself.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jrumney ( 197329 )
              If you are going to sign an exclusive contract, make sure there is a minimum sales clause that lets you terminate the exclusivity if they are not performing. I guess you learnt that the hard way.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by MontyApollo ( 849862 )
                >>I guess you learnt that the hard way.

                Yep. It was kind of a bummer because I thought I might get some easy money.

                In reality it wasn't really that big of a deal. The program was just some project I did to teach myself C++, and I thought I would try to sell some shareware copies and maybe make some beer money. It wasn't anything special, but I was selling it real cheap and that was probably what they wanted to stop. It was a weird sensation though when the president of the company goes from blowing smo

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ravnen ( 823845 )
          That isn't quite right. Netscape's browser was not based on Mosaic, because the licensing chosen by the University of Illinois would not grant an exclusive right to the source code to Netscape. The university's aim was to licence it to anyone who wished to use it, and this didn't fit with Netscape's plans. That's why Marc Andreessen and the other Netscape developers called their new browser 'Mozilla', meaning 'Mosaic killer'. For Internet Explorer, on the other hand, Microsoft did acquire a Mosaic licence,

        • Free wasn't the problem (Score:3, Interesting)

          by weston ( 16146 )
          The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free

          While I'm sure some code and ideas came with Andreeson, I'm given to understand the actual codebases for Navigator and Mosaic were rather different (and indeed, if anybody's browser is based on Mosaic, you could argue it's IE, as it's a direct descendant of the Mosaic codebase under a deal between MS and U of Illinois).

          then com
          • >>What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.

            I can understand that, but that was never what I heard in the news. The press always framed it a certain way - the issue was MS giving away a browser for free. The average public response was "it's their software and they can give away for free if they want. Netsca
      • Quick reality check for you dude. I know reality hurts but... Microsoft is NOT barred from "embedding the functionality of other software markets into their OS..." They are barred from integrating trademarked functionality/features defined as "middleware" according to the court definition that prevents third parties from offering the same functionality with equal visibility. The court did not rule that they cannot bundle this middleware into their OS. They are just required to make it possible for simila

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by I'm Don Giovanni ( 598558 )
          Exactly.
          And the fact that Microsoft has continued to be allowed to bundle a web browser should be evidence enough of that. But too many slashdotters are living in a world of make-believe and/or groklaw.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          Not to be too picky, but I would hardly call a hard disk searching utility middleware. M$ truly sucks sometimes but google's privacy invasive is truly up there with the windrones.

          Perhaps at a stretch you might call software that analyses the contents of files, a users file search patterns, or software that creates a consumer profile of a person based upon the personal contents of the hard disk drive (and distributes it over the internet), might be called marketing middle ware but it is also pretty sucky s

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        The difference is that the 'small' company in Cupertino, CA, is not a convicted monopolist.

        This is the stupidest argument that people make, and I'm sick of hearing it. Don't trot out the "Big Brother says it's wrong, so it's wrong" argument unless you're also willing to get behind the Patriot Act, the DMCA, harsh drug laws, and every other stupid, moronic law and court case that our broken government spits out.

      • Microsoft's monopoly is not illegal. Using their monopoly to gain an advantage in different industries/fields/whatever is illegal. So Microsoft is free to use their OS monopoly to progate itself, but not to force you to buy Microsoft Money and destroy Quicken.

        That said, this seems like a legitimite OS feature, as opposed to, say HTML rendering or spreadsheet manipulation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hitmanWilly1337 ( 1034664 )
      The major difference is that this is part of an agreement that MS has with the feds. There's nothing illegal about bundling multiple types of software together, other companies do it all the time. The issue is that this is against the above mentioned settlement. MS was convicted of holding a monopoly, and as such is subject to a different set of rules than the rest of the world. When the anti-trust settlement expires, then they are free to do business just like everyone else. (At least short of returning to
    • I'm going to take a different angle on your question and compare against Google ...

      Apple's Spotlight is different than Google's searches (and gmail as well) in that it is not used to build a profile about your interests so that various websites can deliver targeted advertsising. Keep in mind that Google is fighting over who will be able to profile you and sell that information to advertisers in an indirect way.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ProppaT ( 557551 )
      Exactly. This holds no grounds in court as far as I can see because Microsoft HAS to offer new features to stay competitive with OSX. Sure, if Microsoft offered a full featured, non integrated cd-burning software with their OS, Roxio and Ahead would have a case against Microsoft. A search function is vital to everyday computing and is a built in function. I don't think Google has much to worry about. Desktop integrates absolutely perfectly with my gmail, so I'll continue to use it.
    • Apple is not a convicted monopoly, there is a difference.

    • Spotlight Plug Ins (Score:5, Informative)

      by weston ( 16146 ) <westonsd@@@canncentral...org> on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:34PM (#19770877) Homepage
      Spotlight's not really the same thing, I don't think, but to the extent that it's similar, it's got some fairly good hooks for third-party developers and it's pretty customizable:

      http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/ [apple.com]
      http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/go ogleimporter.html [apple.com]

      Does Microsoft offer something similar?

    • This seems to be brought up often enough with Microsoft antitrust articles that I can't help wondering if someone who doesn't get the difference yet is a paid Microsoft shill. Bundling two pieces of software together is not illegal. Bundling software with an operating system is not illegal. Bundling a search API and application with an operating system is not illegal. Using a monopoly in one market to attempt to gain one in another market is illegal.

      Apple do not have anything like a monopoly in the ope

      • >>If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.

        I think search is an intrinsic part of the operating system, and I don't think even Google thinks it should be a separate product. Because of the previous settlement, Google is claiming they should be given easier access to replacing components of the operating system.

        I don't know enou

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ravnen ( 823845 )

        If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.

        This is one of the most important reasons why many, including Alan Greenspan, object to these laws: insofar as the question of whether or not desktop search is a separate market from operating systems is a legal rather than a technical one, there is no way for Microsoft to know whether or not

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

      And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

      First, Google offers a version of Google desktop on OS X that uses the same APIs that Spotlight does. They don't use the same API's as Vistas search because not all of them are public and MS does not provide an easy way for them to stop the built in search function, so the user ends up running both with a performance penalty.

      Second, there is normally nothing illegal about bundling two products in existing separate markets. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market into an existing, separate mark

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )
        My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all! There has been a search feature in every version of windows since at least 95 (I don't remember about 3.1.)

        Desktop search was also an announced feature of Vista before Google announced Google Desktop Search, so it seems disingenuous for them to claim to MS is somehow trying to muscle them. On the other hand, there were plenty of features announced for Vista that n

        • My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all!

          Okay, time for some perspective. Assuming you can agree to the basic principal that leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain in another needs to be illegal because it breaks the free market, how do you go about defining things in legal terms? Well, obviously some things have to be bundled to be useful. So you look at markets, after all that is what economists and judges are concerned about. MS allowed a market for indexed search to appear before they implemented it themselves. People paid for software

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            Sure there has, but that is searching by filename, not searching inside the contents of various kinds of file formats and extracting matching words.

            Content searching has been around since at least Windows 2000. The big change in Vista is 1) the indexer (so your searches are fast, instead of having to wait for the disk to be scanned) and 2) search is pervasive (it indexes anything it can get its grubby little hands on, including the contents of databases (like access MDBs, or Outlook PSTs), exchange message

    • You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows.
      Actually that is different from Windows, and the heart of Google's complaint. You can't stop Microsoft's indexer from running or remove Microsoft's Desktop Search from Windows Explorer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ravnen ( 823845 )

        You can't stop Microsoft's indexer from running

        Nonsense, of course you can stop it. The 'Windows Search' service is simply one of many non-essential Windows services, and can be stopped or disabled by any user with administrative privileges. If that is the heart of Google's complaint, then they're either dishonest or incompetent.

        or remove Microsoft's Desktop Search from Windows Explorer.

        Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complainin

        • Nonsense, of course you can stop it. The 'Windows Search' service is simply one of many non-essential Windows services, and can be stopped or disabled by any user with administrative privileges. If that is the heart of Google's complaint, then they're either dishonest or incompetent.

          Let me clarify, you can't stop Windows Search service without compromising the functionality of the Vista desktop. This is no different than IE, which could be removed, but then nothing would work right. Disabling Windows Search also disables all of Vista's search boxes, so nobody is actually going to do it.

          Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complaining now.

          Windows 95 search functions didn't have adverse technical effects on Google's product offerings, Windows Search does.

    • I continue to be amazed at the posts that continue to be modded up when anything about MS and monopolies gets posted.

      After all the posts that have been made on this board about monopolies, you'd think people would learn and stop begging the question over and over and over.

      Look, if you are severely mentally handicapped with regards to monopolies, then read this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_beha viours [wikipedia.org]

      If this doesn't help, don't utter another word until you sit down with an Economics professo
  • @~:locate myfile.txt

    Works just fine for me ^_^

  • Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)

    by osewa77 ( 603622 ) <naijasms@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:00PM (#19770413) Homepage
    The future Microsoft wants to bury the current Microsoft. Hmm, that's just about right. The universe is pleased.

  • judge (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wwmedia ( 950346 )
    doesn't the judge read slashdot?

    doesn't he know that

    microsoft are the evil empire! [google.com]
    and
    google does no evil! [google.cn]
  • You can tell a bunch of kids "we're good guys" and if your logo is colorful enough, they'll trust you.

    But fooling the people in the legal system is a bit more involved than that. I don't like Google trying to mess around where it has no business.
  • funny how Microsoft can constantly damage competitors products, say their are sorry, and then take close to a year before the actual fix is pushed out. It reminds me of something I saw years ago. You know how Microsoft hates Java and all it means, well developers love it and Microsoft was refusing to make an JDBC interface to their MS SQL Server database. There were 3rd parties doing it and even an open source version IIRC, and finally Microsoft was pressured by customers to build a JDBC driver for their d

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.

      And what's wrong with that? It's their damn product. Of COURSE they're going to try to promote it above all else. Do you not do this with your products? Or if you aren't self-employed, does your company not do this? If you don't like it, you're free to use a competitor's product.

      • Re:sorry we'll refix it after a few months. promis (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mhall119 ( 1035984 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:39PM (#19771807) Homepage Journal

        And what's wrong with that? It's their damn product. Of COURSE they're going to try to promote it above all else. Do you not do this with your products? Or if you aren't self-employed, does your company not do this? If you don't like it, you're free to use a competitor's product.
        There is nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to promote their product, and trying to keep their marketshare. The problem comes in when they accomplish this not by keeping their own product better than the competition, but by keeping the competition from getting better than their own product.

        In this case, instead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering. Similarly, Vista's security lets Microsoft's inferior antivirus run properly, but interferes with the operation of other AV products. Tell me how you, as a consumer, benefit from that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by BewireNomali ( 618969 )
          microsoft's desktop search is better than google's.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ravnen ( 823845 )

          [I]nstead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering.

          From what I've read, the only way Microsoft's search service is claimed to 'interfere' with Google's is by existing and being enabled: running two services to index content will of course slow both of them down. The fact that Microsoft's service can easily be turned off or disabled makes this complaint a nonsense. If Google's in

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by weicco ( 645927 )

            You are absolutely right. There is API for disabling services. There is API to interact with Windows Search. There is command line tool to disable services. Etc. Etc. I've written about this numerous times and if I remember correctly couple of my posts here in Slashdot even got +5 informative (woohoo!). So only question to ask is, when's the Google Operating System about to be released?

            So I think the proper ordering of things goes like...

            1. deal away with competition by using the court system
            2. release your o

            • OK, but the lack of an API to disable Vistas indexing isn't what's being contested. In fact, you can read the amicus brief Google submitted to the courts about the issue here [209.85.129.104].

              Here's the key quote:

              Google welcomes the efforts of the parties to address Microsoft's violation by taking steps to promote user and OEM choice. At the same time, from what Google understands of the remedies, it appears that more may need to be done to provide a truly unbiased choice of desktop search products in Vista and achieve

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by weicco ( 645927 )

                Thank you! Finally someone explained what's all this about. But still I don't see any problem here, at least without further explanation. If you click Start-button you will see "search" option there. What's preventing Google to add "Search using Google" button there? Or is it that Google want's to be the sole search engine and front-end in Windows?

                • But still I don't see any problem here, at least without further explanation. If you click Start-button you will see "search" option there. What's preventing Google to add "Search using Google" button there? Or is it that Google want's to be the sole search engine and front-end in Windows?

                  The problem is that for people who want to use Google's desktop search on Vista, they have 2 options:

                  1.) Run both MS and Google indexers, and notice performance issues related to having 2 indexing your hard drive at the same time
                  or
                  2.) Disable the MS indexer and loose file system search functionality from within Windows Explorer and other Vista components.

                  Either way, installing Google Desktop Search on Vista now causes an inconvenience for the user, so people are less likely to do so.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by weicco ( 645927 )

                    Yes I can see the problem now. But still there's technical solutions available. You can add plugins to Explorer like TortoiseSVN does for an example. You can control context menus in Explorer. You can do lot's of customization if you please. In fact I just found this . I don't know how and if it works or does it even work with Vista but I'm sure it can be made to work with Vista.

                    • The problem still remains that in order to keep Google's search from slowing down your system, you have to disable parts of Vista that should not have to be disabled. That is Google's complaint, that Microsoft has designed Vista such that nobody would want to stop the Windows Indexer, and therefore by performance extension, nobody would want to run Google's desktop search. Imagine if you had to remove IE in order for Firefox to work right, would you do it? Or would you just use IE?

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by weicco ( 645927 )

                      What the heck! How about if I install Google search, disable Windows search, and then some other 3rd party search (without disabling Google search). Then I'd have Google search causing performance issues which is Google's fault? This is just plain stupid. And that IE and Firefox thing is flawed since IE isn't performing system wide services on the background.

                      I'm wondering if Google should concentrate more on development and less on playing pool and tennis (see that Google video shown on Oprah, can be found

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ravnen ( 823845 )
                Ah, so the complaint is about the search boxes in the Explorer UI, and not the search service. In that case, there is at least a reasonable basis for the complaint, but the suggestion that searching the local file system is 'middleware' is dubious at best: a content indexing service has been a standard feature of Windows since Windows 2000, and a basic search interface has always been part of Explorer. The primary difference in Vista is simply that the two features have been replaced by much improved versio
        • The AV comment is pure bullshit. Absolutely 100% incorrect.

          For quite a while Live OneCare wasn't even available for Vista. AFAIK it STILL hasn't been released for the 64-bit edition, though there is a port in progress.

          By comparison, Trend Micro had a public beta of their PC-Cillin 2007 [trendmicro.com] by the time Vista was in public beta (build 5384, well over a year ago). It supports Vista 32-bit and 64-bit editions (as well as XP and 2000).

          When I installed the Vista beta and Security Center suggested I install an AV, I c
          • I'll have to concede the AV point to you, since I use neither AV software nor Vista. I'm just going by the AV companies complaints that proceeded Vista's launch.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Locutus ( 9039 )
        I guess you're too young to know what's going on. I'll keep it short, Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop computer operating systems. Not bad in itself and really what businesses strive for. Now the good part, Microsoft has used that monopoly to block competitors and protect their monopoly product(s). This is legal thing and comes into effect once a company gains monopoly status in a market. Now the really bad part, over the last 15+ years, Microsoft has used anti-competitive practices outside the laws of a

  • pansies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:11PM (#19770565) Journal
    I used to have respect for them. Their attitude towards MS seemed to be "bring it on!" I guess Steve Jobs is the only who is still willing to take on the giant in the market place without the government help. It does seem that those who win legal cases against MS lose to them in the market place soon after. I am not really saying that there is a causality there -- just a correlation. Even Apple took its biggest market share hit right after their we-invented-windows law suit (although Apple lost that one). Anyway, I just wanted to say, it's time for Sergei to start throwing some chair instead whining to the government.

  • anti-competitive Vs features! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SolusSD ( 680489 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:12PM (#19770587) Homepage
    I am not a fan of microsoft-- in fact i refuse to use windows or give my money to microsoft in any way-- but i think that they should have the right to include whatever they want in *their* OS as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor. For example-- back in the day microsoft shipped a microsoft branded java virtual machine that implemented things just a tad differently. People started programming for microsoft's JVM instead of Sun's JVM, effectively attempting to steal the java market from Sun.
    • "...as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor."

      Don't you believe that integrating a competing product into their Monopoly OS IS DOING EXACTLY THAT!

      I'm not talking about including separate software that doesn't have to be installed. I'm talking about integration so that it's always there. They did it with their web browser and that killed Netscape now their doing the same F**king thing with their search en
      • Yeah, but we're talking about searching files on your computer here. This is a feature that has been in pretty much every OS since God was a teenager. Sure, it's evolving into faster and smarter searching and incorporating content searches as well as file name searches, but it's still just about searching your computer for your stuff. If this isn't within the domain of an OS then what is?

        Google made a name for itself by indexing the internet and providing a useful way to search for content there. Now th

    • I am not a fan of microsoft-- in fact i refuse to use windows or give my money to microsoft in any way-- but i think that they should have the right to include whatever they want in *their* OS as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor.

      Google's complaint is that Microsoft's desktop indexer cannot be stopped, so running Google's indexer in parallel causes a significant performance decrease (read: crippling other companies product). Also, Microsoft's search is the only one available within windows explorer, directing internet search traffic to Microsoft's Live Search, instead of allowing people to use Google or Yahoo (read: using anti-competitive practives to steal the market from a competitor). It's only slightly more subtle than having

      • What's interesting here is that Windows has had a search feature since Win95 days. It was never "anticompetitive" according to Google until now. Of course, it was never better than what Google has to offer until now, either.
        • Just because they both have "search" in their name, doesn't mean they're the same product. Window's desktop search is to Win95 file search what Google internet search is to IE bookmark search.
          • How so? I don't see content searching as a huge leap over searching purely by file name.
            • Then you've never used content searching. With content searching (at least with Beagle) I can search not only file names, but the content of multiple file types, emails, web history, bookmarks, Photos, Music, Videos, IM sessions, etc.
              • You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change.

                P.S. "then you've never used content searching" is such a lame way to bolster your argument. I wouldn't expect anyone to use such a self-servin

                • You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change.

                  If you use desktop search only as an enhanced file search, then it's no surprise that you don't consider it much different. In that sense, you *haven't* really used it in any meaningful sense.

                  Desktop searches more than just files, and even more than just the content of files. Traditional file search involves reading the file system table. Desktop search involves profiling the contents of files, emails, browser activity and IM sessions plus meta data in media files like Jpeg and MP3. All of this informa

  • Google's motivation: targeted advertising ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:16PM (#19770649) Homepage
    I'm going to offer a tangent given that many /.'s misunderstand Google. Google is not really a "search" company, they are a targeted advertising company. Searches are just a means to build profiles on us, as is gmail. Microsoft and Google are fighting over who gets to profile us and collect the targeted advertising revenue streams. Basically who will websites pay to find out which ad banners to show us.

  • Assistance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:32PM (#19770861)
    "The judge has declined Google's assistance."

    Google's not interested in assisting anything. Like the other companies involved in the MS antitrust case, they simply want the court to help them compete.

    • Like the other companies involved in the MS antitrust case, they simply want the court to help them compete

      If Google is going to litigate its way to success, the company is in sorry shape. Maybe they should replace Schmidt with a tobacco company exec, because that is where the litigation strategy is leading.

      Interesting thought... Maybe search engine companies will be looked on with as much suspicion as tobacco companies in the future. "For those who choose to search..." It's possible that all you

  • This was merely a message to Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BobMcD ( 601576 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:06PM (#19771329)

    This gesture was a really nifty way of Google telling Microsoft:

    "Comply with your settlement, or we will force you to do so."

    Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I'm sure if no one had complained about the whole Vista search thing, the DoJ would never have taken any issue with it at all. Or, if they had, we'd certainly never know about it.

  • Boo Hoo Hoogle. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @10:46PM (#19776243)
    Google's desktop search sucks. They're never wanted a GUI integrated search anyways, so what are they complaining about? Google's Desktop search is like their online search! It runs in a WEB UI. It does not need gui access, they never needed gui intergration before, so why are they crying?

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close