Google Says Microsoft Is Driving Antitrust Review 295
GovTechGuy writes "On Friday we discussed news that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott opened a probe into whether Google ranks its search listings with an eye toward nicking the competition. Google suggested the concerns have a major sponsor: Microsoft. In question is whether the world's biggest search engine could be unfairly disadvantaging some companies by giving them a low ranking in free search listings and in paid ads that appear at the top of the page. That could make it tough for users to find those sites and might violate antitrust laws. Abbott's office asked for information about three companies who have publicly complained about Google, according to blog post by Don Harrison, the company's deputy general counsel. Harrison linked each of the companies to Microsoft."
Don't worry Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Of course that unfairly disadvantages Bing Crosby. But he's dead. Just like Windows Live Search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't worry Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
UK version of Google : "Bing" shows me the UK version of Bing first then bing.com
UK Version of Bing : "Google" shows me google.com then google.co.uk ....
This seems to be a trend with all my bing searches, the strictly correct but irrelevant answer first, then somewhere down the page what I actually asked for, whereas google tends to give the the relevant answer first more often than not ....
This is probably just the way I look for things ... your experience may vary ....
It's free (Score:3, Insightful)
Um .. it's a free service - if you don't like it use something else!
Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
A) No "default" lock-in, fire up a new OEM computer and chances are, Google isn't the default home page or search engine. Usually its one of MS's offerings.
B) No e-mail lock-in, Gmail supports forwarding and also standardized access via POP
C) No phone lock-in, Android is by far the most open of the popular Smartphone OSes beating both Windows Mobile and iOS.
The only thing Google should possibly get an Anti-trust suit is with Google Book Search but that is mostly because of how fucked-up the copyright situation is in the US and not because Google is trying to be evil.
Being good at something so people use your site is not a monopoly, it is competition.
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not arguing in favor of this investigation and don't believe the allegations, but you're wrong about the monopoly thing. A monopoly doesn't have to be complete, nor does there have to be a lock-in in order to fall afoul of anti-trust law. Standard Oil was not the only oil company, and had minor players. People were always free to buy from them. Windows was not the only operating system, you could always use Linux or buy a Mac.
Standard Oil used its dominant position to stifle its competition. Microsoft used its dominant market share in Windows to snuff out Netscape. I don't think anyone can doubt that Google could decimate a web-based business by demoting them in search rankings.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Windows was not the only operating system, you could always use Linux or buy a Mac.
Yes. You could always use Linux or buy a Mac and end up living like the Amish.
THAT was rather the point of Microsoft being a monopoly. I am sure you have grossly misrepresented the Standard Oil situation as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
It is exceedingly rare to find a true, 100%, monopoly. It is just difficult to control any field to that extent. People need to remember Microsoft never had 100% control. Back during the MS anti-trust days, Apple was still in business, and their ONLY market at the time was computers. 100% of their products were systems that didn't run Windows. That right there is proof MS didn't have 100% control. To have that, Apple would have had to sell no computers. Also while it wasn't popular, Linux was on the desktop then. Maybe you discount Linux because it was free but you can't discount Apple.
So you can't say MS was a monopoly despite Apple and then in the same breath say but Google can't be a monopoly because there are other search engines.
If we say that monopolies are only cases of 100% control, well then we might as well just stop worrying about anti-trust because that'll almost never be the case. A big company could always find some tiny competitor, maybe who only exists in a single town (and only because the company allows it) and say "See? There's competition, we don't own ALL the market!"
If we accept that it doesn't take 100% control to be a monopoly then you can't cry "But there's other search engines so Google CAN'T be a monopoly!" Sorry, but they can. If they are isn't up to us to decide, but they clearly can, despite other engines being out there.
Re: (Score:2)
With Microsoft, it again used government help in the form of government contracts for computers, plus patents and copyrights with OEM bundling meant that it was a monopoly.
Google really uses none of this. Google isn'
Don't know much about history. (Score:3, Informative)
Standard Oil was a monopoly because it was not better than its competition but rather relied on the government to fuel its practices
Petroleum derivatives had a well-earned reputation for being both unpredictable and lethal.
Rockefeller delivered a retail product based on standard formulations and sold in honest weights and measures. "Standard Oil" was trusted.
"Standard Oil" was cheap.
The kerosene that cost 58 cents in 1865 cost 26 cents in 1870. Standard Oil [wikipedia.org]
None too surprisingly, perhaps, the Standard's c
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume if this was the period when there were untrusted petroleum products then it would stand to reason that this was the era for visible gas pumps.
After looking at a few of them I always wondered how bad the market must have been if the customers needed to see the gas being pumped into their vehicle.
I would assume that is why trust was so high when today we rarely consider the quality of the fuel we purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Any comparison between MS's "monopoly" and that of Standard Oil's or AT&T's is remote at best. No specially crafted "market" definition was required for the latter companies to be considered a monopoly like MS's monopoly on "desktop operating systems".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming they were totally blatant and obvious about it... like it Oracle suddenly disappeared from search results after they filed their suit. But if they really chose to use their search market to, say, dominate the mobile market there are so many subtle ways of doing it. Whenever someone searched for the iPhone, stories about the antenna problems could get higher rankings than their organic ranking would dictate. Stories praising the latest Android-based "iphone-killer" could float a closer to
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Oil used its dominant position to stifle its competition. Microsoft used its dominant market share in Windows to snuff out Netscape. I don't think anyone can doubt that Google could decimate a web-based business by demoting them in search rankings.
Assume for the moment that this statement is true (and I would argue that it is not.) Re-read that with the Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the others..." song playing in your head, then tell me why Google deserves to be under investigation again.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you read the very first thing I said my my comment
Re: (Score:2)
"Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, monopolies can be very much defacto situations. I mean technically, there is no barrier for entry to the search market. Just put up a website that does searches, people can use it if they like. No barrier at all...
Except how it really works is that Google has become the one and only place most people go. It is who they trust, who they seek out, etc. What this means is that effectively, there is a nearly insurmountable barrier to entry. You have to make people aware of your site, and convince them to use it. Very hard. Could potentially be harder still since of course people find sites through Google, and Google controls a large amount of online ads. They could black list you quite effectively if they wanted to.
These days, Google really does have control over what people see. If Google knows about it, people know about it. If it doesn't, they don't. That is very much a monopoly position. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but could be abused in many ways, and who knows may be is abused.
I think too many starry-eyed geeks forget that just because Google and Apple don't like MS, doesn't mean that they might not be like MS in many ways. They aren't underdogs anymore, they aren't the little company fighting against the giant. They are both massive, powerful, firms with a lot of control over the markets they are in. That doesn't make them bad or anything, but does mean they deserve the same scrutiny as MS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Oil used its dominant position to stifle its competition. Microsoft used its dominant market share in Windows to snuff out Netscape. I don't think anyone can doubt that Google could decimate a web-based business by demoting them in search rankings.
Yes, Google could do that. The difference is that Standard Oil and Microsoft didn't get in trouble because of what they were capable of doing, they got in trouble because of what they actually did. Now, if anyone manages to prove that Google was doing this (and it's hard to see what the real benefit would be, given the potential liabilities involved.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What giggles me most is that compliance here means that people should be able to search for Microsoft things on Google and Google should not put in funny routines and block out Microsoft. You see how funny this is? It's essentially whiny baby.
If people are searching for Microsoft things, or searching other things and expecting Microsoft to show up, ON GOOGLE, it's too damn late for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
It has NEVER been about who is your default search en
Re: (Score:2)
Andriod as an OS/Platform is much more open.
Yes, that's absolutely true, but here the original poster was talking about the devices from the consumer perspective, as was I.
but it's not open source, which is a pretty bug plus for Android.
As a developer for mobile devices I haven't really seen that much of a boon from that aspect, other than educationally since I can review source. But again from the consumer side, I've not seen much of a benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OpenMoko [wikipedia.org]
Maemo [wikipedia.org]
MeeGo [wikipedia.org]
- all of which allow anyone to write apps in any language available, because unlike Android they are mostly using linux' own standard interfaces. In some cases "porting" would simply mean recompiling or even just copying the app over, whereas under Android you'd most certainly have to rewrite it from scratch to conform with Android's requirements and still need to worry about compatib
Re: (Score:2)
Once again Microsoft chooses to litigate instead of innovate. I guess Bing didn't crush Google quite as firmly as Microsoft hoped...
I don't know what Microsoft expected with Bing, but I would guess that they are more than pleased with the marketshare they have been able to grab. Some of the things they've had to do to get that marketshare has been quite lame (deals with Verizon, etc), but I would be surprised if Bing's success has not already exceeded their expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see their stats on what browsers use Bing the most.
I'd bet 95%+ are IE with Bing installed by default and the user hasnt worked out how to change it yet.
I'd also love to know how many searches they get for 'Google' from people trying to get to Google just like how people search for 'Facebook'.
Not Microsoft! (Score:5, Funny)
Surprise suprise... (Score:5, Informative)
* Foundem -- the British price comparison site that is backed by ICOMP, an organization funded largely by Microsoft. They claim that Google’s algorithms demote their site because they are a direct competitor to our search engine. The reality is that we don’t discriminate against competitors. Indeed, companies like Amazon, Shopping.com and Expedia typically rank very high in our results because of the quality of the service they offer users. Various experts have taken a closer look at the quality of Foundem’s website, and New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann concluded, “I want Google to be able to rank them poorly.”
* SourceTool/TradeComet - SourceTool is a website run by parent company TradeComet, whose private antitrust lawsuit against Google was dismissed by a federal judge earlier this year. The media have noted that TradeComet is represented by longtime Microsoft antitrust attorneys, and independent search experts have called SourceTool a “click arbitrage” site with little original content.
* myTriggers - Another site represented by Microsoft’s antitrust attorneys, myTriggers alleges that they suffered a drop in traffic because Google reduced their ad quality ratings. But recent filings have revealed that the company’s own servers overheated, explaining their reduced traffic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What difference does it make even if these companies are Microsoft-backed? How does that affect the merits of their claim?
Re:Surprise suprise... (Score:4, Informative)
It's like all those doctors that testify on behalf of the drug companies. There is a reason why the law now requires big pharma to disclose how much money they are paying doctors in speaking fees.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry man but you can't have it both ways.
Nice straw man you have there - he burns really well!
You can't say "It would be ok for Google to become a monopoly and throw their weight around as such, but not for MS."
Nobody is saying that - and as you so beautifully point out, Google isn't a monopoly. So trying to compare them to Microsoft is disingenuous at best.
Nice try though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have solid reason to believe Google is right. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've dealt with Greg Abbott and the rest of the Texas legal system. The Texas court system is so obviously "Justice for those who can pay for it" and Greg Abbott personally only responds to things that will give him good PR or more money flowing to him that I'm surprised there hasn't been a probe. Google is the financial jackpot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, well, I'm here to say that your mother gives excellent head.
Oh please. (Score:3, Informative)
This is a non-issue. People use google.com's website of their own volition. The search results come from Google's database, there is no hindering of businesses or anti-trust issue here at all since all of the information gleaned on the internet is already present. Google merely presents it how they deem necessary to match the search keywords.
TL;DR: Fuck off.
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a non-issue. People use google.com's website of their own volition.
That has little or nothing to do with it. If Google is ruled to have sufficient market share for selling advertising based on search, then that gives Google a lot of power, including power to distort other markets. The law says, if they do have that power, it's illegal for them to use it to gain, including by harming competitors in other markets. Legally speaking Google cannot rank search results any way they please. They can do it according to impartial rules, but if they have large enough share, they cannot rank certain companies lower as way to gain in other markets.
I seriously doubt, it is the case tat Google is breaking the law here. Likely this is just empty legal harassment, but hopefully the courts will determine that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Google have marketshare? It has marketshare simply because it is the best. When you get marketshare not from locking-in consumers, not by taking government money, not by getting special legal protection, Google should be able to do whatever they want because customers can switch pretty easily.
It doesn't hurt consumers if Google messes with their search results because of these things. If enough people don't want them to, guess what? People will switch, just like
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We'l
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies are bad in the physical world because they take limited resources and monopolize them. There are only so many oil wells in the world, there are only so much (clean) water in the world, etc. when a single company takes control of them they can charge through the roof and make everyone else pay. But this isn't like that.
Barring government intervention in the form of software patents, there are no limited resources when it comes to ads on the web, and barring lock-in with physical things or a -huge- company taking all available IP addresses/bandwidth or something, a monopoly can't exist that harms consumers.
The idea that any company can monopolize infinite resources is laughable. Don't like Google? Use one of their thousands of competitors. Don't like DoubleClick, advertise elsewhere.
The internet allows for unlimited resources, you can't monopolize infinity. Just because the law says something doesn't mean its right, correct and not fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Barring government intervention in the form of software patents, there are no limited resources when it comes to ads on the web,... a monopoly can't exist that harms consumers.
The idea that any company can monopolize infinite resources is laughable. Don't like Google? Use one of their thousands of competitors. Don't like DoubleClick, advertise elsewhere.
I'm not sure what angle you're viewing the situation from, but it's the wrong one.
Advertising dollars are not an infinite resource.
Just as importantly, advertising 'inventory' is not an infinite resource.
There are only so many dollars that can be put towards so many pageviews.
Not only are pageviews finite, they are also not fungible.
This is particularly relevant when you want a targeted ad campaign.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone is behaving as a monopoly,
but I am shitting on your notion that o
Re: (Score:2)
Barring government intervention in the form of software patents, there are no limited resources when it comes to ads on the web
That's nonsense. There most certainly are finite advertisements to be sold, and finite people to advertise to. Just because it's on teh internet doesn't magically make it infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't make sense. Why does Google have marketshare?
Irrelevant. It's like asking why Tom has a rifle. Maybe he uses it for hunting. Maybe he's a cop. It doesn't matter. When you have power, you're prohibited from using that power in ways that harm society. Mike doesn't own a rifle and he can aim his hands at people and squeeze with his finger all he wants. When he buys and is holding a gun, the law sees it differently. It's not illegal to gain a monopoly (in general) just as it's not illegal to obtain a rifle (in general). But you are certainly prohibited fr
Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try finding three major tech companies that aren't linked with Microsoft in some way.
And when the link is "the lawyers hired by TradeComet include some of the same lawyers Microsoft hired to do similar work in the past" and you're getting pretty close to playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon".
If there's a smoking gun somewhere, this ain't it. If this is the best Google's general counsel can do, maybe there isn't a smoking gun anywhere.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
They managed since the reported connection between two of them and Microsoft is that their attorneys have also represented Microsoft on anti-trust issues.
Because you wouldn't want experienced counsel or anything like that, that's just as good as being a Microsoft subsidiary.
Well let's go straight to the source then. (Score:4, Informative)
No kidding (Score:2)
If the supposed link is just the attorneys then that is beyond stupid. It has to be something more than that.
You have to remember that for major issues, companies almost always retain outside council. There are a few reasons for this:
1) In house council often has little to no courtroom experience. Their job is mainly to advise you, look over contracts, that kind of thing. Fine, but that is real different form the skills needed in a courtroom. So when something is going to court, you retain a firm that regul
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has learned nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
The lesson they took away from the antitrust trial was "Antitrust is a way for competitors to use the government to interfere with your business." not "We were being evil and wrong and got into trouble for it.". The wrong lesson. They got off way too lightly and too many people were sympathetic.
Since they took that lesson away, now they think they can do the same thing to Google. They might be right, but I hope not. Though if their allegation has merit (which I strongly suspect it doesn't) I will stop trusting Google and be pretty angry at them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Antitrust is a way for competitors to use the government to interfere with your business." "We were being evil and wrong and got into trouble for it."
Well, in MS's case the first statement is a fact, the second an opinion.
Google has the right to compute whatever they want (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody can dictate to you what the output should be when someone connects a browser to your server (or cloud) to retrieve a form, types something into a field and hits submit.
End of story.
Confirmed on Groklaw... (Score:4, Informative)
Or did they break the story?
Gee, maybe if Bing didn't suck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its ability to find porn in the video search is better than Google.
The way the roads are drawn on maps are a bit easier to read than Google (but Yahoo is better still).
Honorable mention: the new version of Google Images brings it almost down to Bing's level.
How Do They Know? (Score:4, Funny)
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming this is true, so what? Google has tried to get regulator's onto Microsoft's ass. What's wrong with Microsoft returning the favor?
Googling MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else use use Google to search for something thats on a MS website? I mean, their search on their own site is so horrible in finding what I'm looking for that I use google. I can't be the only person that does this.
Yes, all the time for technical docs and downloads.
A simple search shows MS is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was curious, so I compared searching for "open office" on Bing and Google. Google returns a list of sites that would be pretty much what anyone would expect, lots of links to openoffice.org sites, and some other related sites that all seem reputable. Bing is somewhat similar, except for one glaring exception. The third link (and for some reason, my eye was drawn to it, probably because the title was simply "OpenOffice") is to http://openoffice.org-suite.com/ [org-suite.com]. Note that this is NOT a site associated wi
Microsoft is just upset (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not buying it (Score:2, Interesting)
I note with interest that Google seems to have developed a template defense when it's caught out.
It always seems to ignore the actual issue and instead starts pointing fingers at others for "being behind it". With China it was the Chinese government (ignoring that Apple has managed to keep secrets for years in the same country), with Streetview it was the respective governments instead of Google quite simply breaking the law, and now this.
Here's news: it ain't working. Get rid of the 10 year old who appea
Re:The obvious (Score:5, Informative)
But Google's search algorithm is published -- there's even a helpful book about it, Amy Langville's "PageRank and beyond" which demonstrates that it's no more complicated than the linear algebra you learned in your sophomore year of engineering school.
Re:The obvious (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a ton of logic behind trying to determine in a page what is "important," and that comes down to parsing html and making inferences as to what is the "main part", what is a heading, and so on. And then there is logic for determining what is duplicate content....again a very complex problem. The list goes on. If you think this is simple or straightforward, I'd say you are highly mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
cat butt slaps down dog butt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The obvious (Score:4, Informative)
sure do. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100904101642564 [groklaw.net]
note that it shows a: the antitrust links and b: why anyone can make a google search engine by their own choice
Really, why should google ever publish the "how we do our job"? that's not their job, and it's not microsoft, and it's not anyone's.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even more obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand the concept of antitrust laws.
In order for antitrust laws to take effect a company does not need to be a monopoly. It needs to have significant market power. The definition depends on regulator and leeway depends on regulator as well.
For example regulators in the EU (except UK) and USA allow natural monopolies based around inventions and in new markets. If you invent something new and you use it to create a market or enter an existing market most regulators (except UK) will allow you to grow your company until you have SMP and sometimes even to a full monopoly provided that you stay within your market. However, if you try to leverage this monopoly to enter a new market you will get whacked on short order. Same if you try to leverage it to prevent other players from entering the market you have created.
Coming back to Google. Google has SMP (and is not in the UK) which is achieved by natural growth and this is one of the reasons why it does not get whacked straight away. Google also is clearly leveraging its SMP position in search space to enter other markets - applications, navigation, etc. This is a different story compared to search space. There, the regulators are obliged to investigate it by law. In fact it is surprising that it is under so little scrutiny. This says volumes about their lobbying and legal arm. Actually looking at the list of job ads they dump on linkedin around here and doing some stats on the ratio of lobby, pr, legal vs engineering makes this considerably less surprising. Not surprising at all in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It has repeatedly been argued, right here on slashdot, that if MS had NOT been found to be a monopoly
Not quite. Microsoft was not a monopoly, in the strict technical sense. Apple was competing with them, for example, as were a number of other smaller companies. They did, however, have enough market influence that they could act as if they had a monopoly. For example, in a competitive market, if you raise your prices then you lose some customers to the competition. In a monopoly, you just get more income. In Microsoft's case, the network effect meant that they didn't need to completely own the market
Bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft is actually flamingly guilty of such antitrust. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that if someone accuses a person of rape, who actually in fact commited said rape, then it is a case of "fair is fair" if the rapist then accuses you of raping them.
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google gave up their mantra?
Why do people keep saying that? Anyone who knows technology well knows it isn't true. Sure they're a business and they operate for profit, that's a given, but they are a lot more open and non-evil then they have to be - a lot.
They make their own web browser (which is 99% open source), and still support Firefox.
They still support some apps on iPhone even though Apple has been dicks to them.
They made their mobile phone OS open source.
They contribute lots of code back to Linux a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people keep saying that?
Rampant cynicism, typical of slashdot. A large company that makes a profit cannot be good. No politician who is part of one of the two parties can ever have a good idea. That type of thing mostly. And maybe a little bit of the "Google signed a deal to kill net neutrality!!!" story that came out a week or two ago followed closely by the "Oh wait, no, that was a false rumor" that was less reported.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay true. But in this case, what is being claimed is simply not likely to be true. While I trust google about as far as I can throw it (let it be known and repeated that I distrust ALL marketing/advertising companies) the claims against it are inconsistent with even the most casual observations.
The antitrust claims against Microsoft, on the other hand, were quite valid. And, as it turns out, the remedies against Microsoft were clearly not enough as they haven't yet changed their ways fully. (For example, OEM version of Microsoft Office is mysteriously cheaper when purchased through Dell than when purchased through other sources... perhaps this is "Dell's doing" but then again, to what advantage is it to offer MS Office at a perceived discount? Certainly not the user who doesn't get MS Office and still has to pay a partial price for it as that portion of the cost is rolled into the price of the computer.) And I am sure there are lots more examples of the games they play, but it's close to my bed time and the mind is shutting down.
I'm neither a Google fan nor one of Microsoft. But as someone from the outside, objectively I can't see where the case has merit and it just smells like more of Microsoft's dirty play. After all, this is not the first time we have heard of Microsoft's agenda being pushed by its partners and affiliates.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, Dell typically doesn't make any money on the MS software they sell--at least not when to comes to volume licensed software. They sell it as cost, as a means of driving other business (hardware). At least, that's the story I've gotten from my sales
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. As long as Dell continue to offer a wide range of Linux system as well as Microsoft Windows PCs then I cannot see anything suspicious about getting cheap access to Microsoft products. I have not seen their web site for a while, but I cannot see why they wouldn't offer just as many Linux products as Microsoft as the operating system is simply a cost to drive the hardware part of their business.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is true that Google downranks or delists pages that they deem to be "spammers".
These spammer / SEO folks would very much like Google to be forced to not filter their sites out of search results or be allowed to adjust their algorithms to downrank them.
It would hurt Google and google users if Google were not allowed to do this.
It would also ultimately hurt all search engines, except ones that are protected by being the default.
As there would no longer be a reason to prefer Google or any other
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is stupid. Antitrust is not about your competitors complaining about you. Antitrust is when you are so economically powerful that you can destroy the free market and create a situation in which you economically destroy anybody who competes with you.
'What goes around comes around.' reveals a mindset in which antitrust is all part of the normal give-and-take of companies competing against each other. It isn't. Somebody has to engage in a specific set of behaviors deemed anticompetitive for it to be considered an antitrust problem. It's a market distortion, and companies accused of it aren't playing by rules in which capitalism can function properly.
It's possible this accusation against Google is true. But I suspect it's just smoke. If it is true, I will consider Google to have done something truly evil and deserving of this investigation. And it will not be a case of 'what goes around comes around'. It will be a case of a company doing something wrong that should be punished severely.
Re: (Score:2)
"Antitrust is not about your competitors complaining about you. Antitrust is when you are so economically powerful that you can destroy the free market and create a situation in which you economically destroy anybody who competes with you."
And yet MS's antitrust problems stemmed exactly from competitors complaining about them.
Re: (Score:2)
All these political playing lawyer firms that pose as tech giants are pathetic really.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, that tenuous...
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
[citation needed]
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html [blogspot.com] etc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These aren't comparable, in this case Microsoft is backing lawsuits with their own resources, your linked blog post is about their comment on the matter since they now had experience in the the browser market. Google didn't bring fourth any of the antitrust lawsuits or back them up of support them with their resources. And quoted from the blog "Google's perspective will be useful as the European Commission evaluates remedies to improve the user experience" meaning they will give their comment to the EC in a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Too often this means [google search needed] *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Really? REALLY? This is insightful? The best 5+ slashdot can offer? A kindergartener's level of understanding of life, where "what goes around comes around?" Oh yeah, that's about right.
There are times when the kindergartner is right. Some things are so simple they get overlooked, not so complex that no one can figure them out. This may or may not be one of those times; that's up to the reader to decide. The point is, that isn't an instantaneous slam-dunk dismissal no matter how badly you want it to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is not a person.
What they are though, is an organisation that has repeatedly attacked competitors via proxy - Sco, attempting to sell Linux-relevant patents to trolls, stacking ISO to block ODF, etc, etc.
This effort though, seems too minor and too transparently fallacious to be a direct attack on Google. It's more likley they are furthering another agenda - perhaps establishing precedednt for their own actions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Charging whitebox PC vendors for MS OSes on every box they sell regardless of what OS actually ships on a given PC, so that the whitebox vendors can't afford to preload anyone else's (for example IBM's) OS is kind of an attack by proxy. They were bullying the PC vendors to fight IBM for them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can someone please explain this to me? What company or website am I searching for on google.com where searching for them does not bring up their website?
When you search for "Macaroni" what macaroni making company's website is ranked first among the many returned? If Google has overwhelming influence on the search market and they change their rankings so that it is a macaroni making company not owned by a company they compete with in another market, then that's against the law. It seems unlikely that is the case in any market, but hopefully the courts will determine the truth of the matter.
Re:Gov't killing the market system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't knock homeschooling. Homeschooling by mothers with phDs works GREAT. It's homeschooling by dumb people we have to watch out for. In this case, I think "homeschool" is used as a codeword for stupid people who also happen to be fundamentalist loonies. If you're saying that stupid people who also happen to be fundamentalist loonies are a bad idea, then I'm in complete agreement. Let's make them illegal.