Microsoft Attacks Google on Copyright

The Microsoft Corporation has prepared a blistering attack on rival Google, arguing that the Web search leader takes a cavalier approach to copyright protection. The attack, such as it were, came from Microsoft's Associate General Counsel who was giving a speech to the Association of American Publishers...who have a copyright lawsuit against Google for the last sixteen months. So, an audience ready to hear about how Bad Google is.

Comments

Yesterday, today, tomorrow

[vivaoporto]

Yesterday: Microsoft watches with disdain while $company break through unknown waters
Today: Microsoft attacks $company initiative as being illegal, immoral and bad for business in general
Tomorrow: Microsoft try to embrace the very same business model of $company, only with a layer of DRM on top of it, and try to leverage it using the profits of the OS and Office division.

Nothing different from all other endeavors from our good old Microsoft. Who didn't have it coming?

strange relationships

[bcrowell]

The really weird thing about the google lawsuits is that the publishers suing google are also google's business partners. It's basically a dispute between business allies that's being handled partly in the courts. There's speculation that the outcome will end up being harmful to fair use. Google has tons of cash, and can afford to pay the publishers a certain amount of money to end the suit, even if they really have a good fair use defense that might eventually have held up in court. If that happens, then everybody else's fair use rights could be diminished, because it will be seen as normal that you have to pay for what really should be fair use. Google could end up with a de facto monopoly on indexing books, because competitors wouldn't have enough money to pay the publishers what google paid. (This is mostly paraphrased from a long article in the New Yorker, IIRC.)

Anyone Else Seeing a Pattern Here?

[jeevesbond]

GNU/Linux

1. Microsoft attempt to compete with GNU/Linux via conventional methods: reducing cost (releasing free--as in beer--versions of products), advertising that TCO is higher for Linux than Windows (it's a lie, but what else should we expect them to say?)
2. Conventional methods fail so Microsoft falls-back to good old fashioned dirty tricks: making spurious allegations about 'intellectual property'.
3. ...
4. Profit!

Google

1. Microsoft attempts to compete with Google via conventional methods: producing a competing services with similar capabilities. Then advertise the services as usual, and throw in a bit of IE7 integration in the name of 'choice'.
2. Conventional methods fail so Microsoft falls-back to good old fashioned dirty tricks: making spurious allegations about 'intellectual property'.
3. Throw chair across room
4. ...
5. Profit!

Personally am getting a feeling of: 'same bilge, different day' from Microsoft.

MSN search cache?

[mph]

"Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop," Mr. Rubin said. Microsoft, he said, asks the copyright's owner for permission first.

I just checked search.msn.com and it has a cached copy of my webpages. I don't remember Microsoft asking me for permission. (Not that I mind, but it's at odds with Rubin's statement.)

Such as it were, indeed

[P0ldy]

Perhaps this comment is superfluous since the only person backing you up is an Anonymous Coward, and maybe that's you attempting to vindicate yourself. However, no reply attacking your intelligence, right though they were, gave the reason why the phrase is correct. "Such as it were" is an example of the subjunctive. It's a mood. Pick up a grammar book if you want further explanation. The selfsame mood is the reason for the phrase "Were I to go out...". What?? Were I? You don't say I were. You say I was! Yes, it's the subjunctive, and it's a part of so many languages and would still be important even if it were as little used as it is in English.