Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case 177
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.'"
And how is OSX Spotlight any different? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Free wasn't the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to: Jackson says it here [albion.com]:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Spotlight Plug Ins (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/g
Does Microsoft offer something similar?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple do not have anything like a monopoly in the ope
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complainin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
MS monopoly apologist analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's amazing logic. Many economists argue X causes Y. You contend Y, therefore you must prove X.
I actually would also contend that all industries are natural monopolies: due to economies of scale for the production of almost everything, and the value of brand recognition, almost everything is a natural monopoly. Further, because businesses prie future profits as well, that monopoly will continue to operate even if that price point is where perfect competion would place it. Lastly, I would conten
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I did not say you must prove every market is a natural monopoly, I said the assumption cannot be taken for granted, i.e. you must argue for it (as you now have done). The prior point was also referring to the sustainability of monopolies, and not to their cause per se.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can be faulted for taking an inordinately long time to get their solution to the market, but they've been trying to do it since the mid-1990s, and if there was any copying going on, Goog
Personally... (Score:2)
Works just fine for me ^_^
Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
judge (Score:2, Insightful)
doesn't he know that
microsoft are the evil empire! [google.com]
and
google does no evil! [google.cn]
Abusing their image (Score:2)
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.
sorry we'll refix it after a few months. promise (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Gotta call you on this one (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the least - the only reason this is even being considered in this case is that Microsoft got bitchslapped by the Justice Department a while ago because it was abusing its OS dominance to try and push its way into other markets. So there is o
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:[AC] No shit, sherlock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And everything Google does is to take your personal information and sell it to every bidder.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who feel that business are supposed to fine holes in laws and do whatever they can to make a buck when they realize and expoit those holes. It is a moronic way to do business and it harms society as a whole but they
pansies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
anti-competitive Vs features! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Google made a name for itself by indexing the internet and providing a useful way to search for content there. Now th
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Google's motivation: targeted advertising ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assistance? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that most of the Windows APIs are now accessible to mortals (at some cost), Apple has the track record of actually being interoperable and supporting portable soft
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every large company in this business wants a stranglehold on the entire industry. It just happens that Microsoft has it now. Unless we have far better anti-monopoly laws than there are today, if you take one Microsoft down (or an IBM before it) it will be a question of time before another one appears. For companies like them, keeping this stranglehold is a matter of survival. If we deprive Microsoft from it, its fall will be inevitable.
As IBM has already shown us.
Not to say they have any rig
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Windows was actually responsible for taking the PC into mainstream use by providing an unified achitecture on which software could run. We already have millions of different hardware combinations/configurations to get our software to work with. It would be a complete developer's nightmare to also have hundreds of operating systems!! At least with Windows, you can count on APIs to partly solve the hardware problem.
>>
Responsible for mainstream use?
Oh Please. While yes indee
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather support one each of OS X, Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD, than one of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Since when is Microsoft supposed to guarantee apps work OS to OS. OSX killed OS9 apps... in fact Microsoft typically has better support for dropping an old binary on a new version than any other OS (in major version cycles).
And as for undocumented APIs, use them at your own risk.
The only legal problem is if Microsoft's internal development team gets better documentation/advance notice of the "undocumented" API.
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently not English. The only problem is if Microsoft uses its knowledge of undocumented APIs to gain an advantage on Google. If the documentation is piss-poor (and it is, I've had to rewrite parts so that it was usable), that do
Re: (Score:2)
Developers that don't follow the guidelines and get burned because they took a dependency on an undocumented API should be blamed for building