Slashdot Mirror
Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't
FreshlyShornBalls writes "WebProNews is reporting that
Google's new beta toolbar apparently sports an "AutoLink" feature which appends hyperlinks to existing content. These hyperlinks, of course, point to their services, such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Microsoft's "Smart Tags"." Update by J : ... except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click.
It's ISBN not ISDN
takes over your browser integrates it with the OS and forces you to see the links. then they are getting away with something MS didn't .... quite
"He's a real midnight golfer"
yes, it has an optional feature that does this. and that optional feature has different levels of link creation.
and for pete's sake, slashdot, if you're going to get paranoid and argumentative, at least do it on the day the story broke so it has some currency.
go get it
Google gets away with what Microsoft couldn't
Oh Good Lord what rock have you been under for the last 15 years.
Microsoft is a monopolist convicted of using that monopoly in unlawfully anti-competative ways to run competitors out of business. They've violated in spirit and letter numerous consent decrees, agreements with government, and even court orders, and gotten away with it because their cycle of business is orders of magnitude faster than the wheels of justice.
As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft must play by a different set of rules than everyone else, like, say, Google, which has never been convicted of anything in the US (and quite IMHO bugus trademark violations in France).
You might as well say "Joe's Computers get away with what Microsoft Couldn't." Damn straight. Joe's Computers, like Google, haven't been shown to even be a monopoly, much less convicted of abusing such a position if they had it. Microsoft has, on all counts.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Bill Gates once said that he was planning to give away most if not all of his fortune to charity - I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then ..."
/.er, but Bill Gates has given away more than most people in the history of philanthropy. He's already donated about a third of his net worth to charity. Cut the guy some slack on this front. I don't know how anyone could criticize this guy from a philanthropy perspective.
m l
Just to chime in, I hate M$ as much as the next red blooded
From http://www.beliefnet.com/story/34/story_3450_1.ht
regarding his contributions:
"I don't mean the actual figure, which is itself an unimaginable $22 billion. Rather, I refer to the percentage of his wealth he has donated. Still in his early 40s, Gates has now distributed about one third of everything he has to charity."
First of all, there's no such thing as "convicted monopolist". That's an idiotic term in itself, since it's not illegal to be a monopoly. Show me the law that says being a monopoly is illegal.
The parent poster did not say "convicted monopoly." Otherwise Boeing would have been in trouble for years with this aspect of the law.
The parent poster said "convicted monopolist." IANAL, but I believe that this is defined in section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 of this act specifies penalties of restraint on trade.
Basically, the way the courts have interpreted this (unfortunately, Congress decided to give the Courts essentially legislative power in this area by passing a law with the intention of letting the courts work it out) is that monopoly power is something which must be restricted. Therefore, you can't legally use your monopoly power itself to either protect or extend your monopoly. Those who are found to have done so in the courts are often referred to as "convicted monopolists."
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Read them both! Don't just read Web Pro news, but read the article the author at Web Pro News linked to. These are not the same thing! Damn, first slashdot doesn't RTFA, now it's a disease spreading to other sites!
Look, Window's Smart Tags were not for internet explorer, they were for the entire operating system. Yes they extended to Word and other applications as well. It was a feature described to be in windows XP. And considering MS considers I.E. part of the operating system, and MS has a monopoly on the OS...
Smart Tags are a cool idea, but what really is evil about MS's version is the potential forced tie ins. Would this functionality have directed the user to specific MSN sites or sites people chose to partner on the functionality? Could you right click on a word and select MSN search in order to make it easier for someone? Yes, but by using this OS muscle to create a new OS which basically forces you to search MSN in this manner and makes it less convenience to search, say, Google, then you are using your monopoly power unfairly and it's, yes, Evil(tm).
You don't have to install Google toolbar, and you can configure it to go to other sites other than googles. Google quite possibly has a websearching monopoly, but then don't have a toolbar monopoly nor do they force you to install it on your machine.
I'm not a google apologist nor do I think Google will always be a Good (tm) company. However, I hate how Slashdotters continue to fail to see the relevance of Monopolistic power in the "Evil" equation.
That said, I hope this feature can be completely diactivated. I wouldn't even mind if this controversy did force them to remove it. NBC did this a long time ago with their NBCi initiative back at the start of the WW explosion. It sucked, and frankly, I don't find it all that convenient, even for beginning users. However that's just my opinion.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"