Justice Dept. Defends Microsoft Against Google

Frosty Piss writes "The Seattle PI reports that Google has complained to US antitrust officials about the hard-drive searching tool built into Windows Vista, saying that it stymies Google's similar search program. The complaint, lodged late last year, was revealed Saturday by The New York Times in a story about the Bush administration's handling of Microsoft antitrust issues. The real story, though, is not the Google complaint itself, but how the Justice Department is failing to enforce the Microsoft anti-trust decree. According to the story, Thomas Barnett, the assistant U.S. attorney general in charge of antitrust issues, sent a memo last month to state attorneys general across the nation, seeking to persuade them to reject Google's complaint."

Comments

google is EVIL!

[wwmedia]

So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature, a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft. Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.

Or worse yet, Google is demanding that Microsoft bundle Google's crapware?

To hell with Google. This is the same company that made a deal with Apple to have Safari's web search box locked into Google so you can't change the default or even add secondary search providers (as if that doesn't harm competing search engines on the Mac platform), and has made deals with numerous software companies to install Google toolbar and/or desktop when installing a software package, with the option to install Google's wares pre-checked (my mom has asked me multiple times why Google toolbar keeps reappearing on her computer) and they have the nerve to complain about an OS desktop search feature? (Not to mention that Google's desktop search sucks anyway.)

Oh, and those fools cited in the article are comparing this with the Netscape case? Well, last time I checked, Microsoft is still bundling IE and not Netscape, and is being allowed to do so. So if they want to make that comparison, go right ahead. OEM's can still bundle Google Desktop if they want, just as they can Netscape (Dell is already forcing Google Desktop down its users' throats).

Google has no real case here; maybe Microsoft will be forced to add Google's Desktop Search to the Set Program Access and Defaults control panel (that's what it's called on XP, I don't know what it's called in Vista); in other words, be forced to add bloat for the sake of the invincible Google (so invincible that they need to go whining to government every chance they get), but that's about it.

Re:google is EVIL!

[mabinogi]

The problem is not that Microsoft include a search tool.
The problem is that there's no way to turn it off, and running Google desktop simultaneously therefore causes the computer to slow down enough that no one would want to install Google Desktop.

There should never be anything wrong with including something with the operating system, it's preventing competitors from competing on merit that's the problem - even the Netscape issue was never purely about the bundling of IE - as much as the overly simplistic coverage often implied that - it was about Microsoft using the threat of cutting off OEMs who installed Netscape as an alternative.

This is a fair bit weaker, as it's more of a technical issue than anything else, though it bugs me that Vista's indexer can't be turned off regardless of whether or not it affects Google Desktop.

Re:google is EVIL!

[nanosquid]

So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft.

No, they are demanding that Microsoft lets people disable it. You know, like you can do on any other operating system.

Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.

In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that and instead give users the option to pick and choose what components they like.

Re:google is EVIL!

[Deviate_X]

Or worse yet, Google is demanding that Microsoft bundle Google's crapware?

The worst thing about google software is that they distrubute it like malware, in the sense that its hidden in other software like Adobe Reader, Java, and Firefox. If your not careful you can end up with goodle toolbars, sidebars and whatnot installed on your machine.

Re:google is EVIL!

[skoaldipper]

Anti competitive? What's next? Norton sues Microsoft because their AV may occasionally cause Virtual Memory error messages? Hey, let's just disassemble the OS entirely piece by piece by lawsuits, one step at a time (like Johnny Cash says), and put it all back together with 3rd party craplets.

Re:google is EVIL!

[ozmanjusri]

In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that

I don't.

I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.

The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS. Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995. Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.

It's their own laxity that's brought them this trap, so I have little sympathy.

Re:google is EVIL!

[rbanffy]

"So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature, a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft. Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now."

Since Microsoft has an effective monopoly on operating systems for commodity hardware, they have to play under different, more restrictive, rules. If Apple locks down Safari search it affects about 10 percent of users, 50% of which use Firefox, anyway. When Microsoft introduces new features into Windows, if affects 90+% of the market.

It's also illegal for Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on desktop OSs to gain a monopoly on other existing markets (like web browsers, office suites, corporate e-mail, file and print servers, anti-virus and, yes, desktop search). And, mind you, since being judged guilty of extending their monopoly in the anti-trust lawsuit, they _have_ such restrictions in place and the DoJ _should_ be doing something about it.

While it may look obvious they should be able to extend their products at will, it should be noted that by doing so in an unrestrained way, they can harm the market in very severe ways.

Of course, if all things continue the way they do, Google's time under the microscope is coming, but that doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever it wants.

Re:google is EVIL!

[bdjacobson]

The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly.

Are people really this retarded, cause I see this repeated?

Click Control Panel - Indexing - Uncheck the locations it searches.

Method two: Set the Windows Search to 'Manual' or 'Disabled'.

Both of these are EASY for the user, and something EVEN a Google Installer could do automatically for a user if the user chose to do it.

This is not Something that can't be turned off and doesn't run all the time if you don't want it to.

I can't believe people read the Google crap and are so retarded they think it is accurate or even a legitimate complaint. How many people are going to know this? Or even know that this is the problem? You give far too much credit to the average user.

They're going to see a link on google's homepage for the newest greatest google program they can download. They're going to click through install as fast as they can not reading anything like they always do. Then they're going to notice that their computer is going a whole lot slower. They're going to think "hm, the only thing that's changed since it's been going slow is I installed the google desktop thing. Must be that." So they uninstall the google program and then tell their coworkers how bad it is, and to stay away from it, etc.

This is how it is anti-competitive.

Re:google is EVIL!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What about Mac os X spotlight? Google also has a desktop search for the Mac but they aren't asking for Spotlight to be remove or disabled.

You expect Google to ask antitrust officials to look into Apple's activities with regard to OS X? Apple does not have a monopoly and they certainly have not been convicted of abusing that monopoly to the point where antitrust officials are supposed to be regulating their behavior.

Re:google is EVIL!

[edumacator]

Two points.

1. Is it possible that there are more technical issues that aren't expressed clearly in the story? I have a hard time believing Google, no matter what your opinion of them, would complain if the fix was as easy as you claim.

2. Why are so many people screaming at Google over their security issues. If you don't like the way they handle their security, avoid using Google or Google products. Some people might be willing to take a chance on Google's data collection in order to have products, ads, search results that they perceive to be more relevant. People scream at Google as if they were invading our living rooms uninvited. It seems to me that a lot of people just want to jump on the hate Google or hate Microsoft bandwagons, so they can have something to scream about. If that's the case, then let me know. There are some serious things going on in the world that need a few more ardent advocates.

Re:google is EVIL!

[nanosquid]

I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.

Quite right.

The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS.

Yes, and why do you think that is? I'll tell you: because, currently, meaningful competition for desktop features is impossible; you may get a bunch of small shareware vendors, but Microsoft can kill them whenever they want. Therefore, nobody invests serious amounts of time or money in making the Windows desktop any better.

Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995.

Database-like file management has been available since the 1960's. It hasn't caught on because people haven't quite figured out how to make it work well for end users. There is still a lot of R&D investment to be done before this is going to work better than current file management, but nobody has an incentive to do that kind of investment as long as Microsoft can simply control what's on the desktop.

Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.

Even if there were no anti-trust issues, Microsoft simply has no economic incentive to do a good job. In the end, a bunch of Microsoft engineers will come up with some gee-whiz features that pay lip service to "database-like file management", but it makes no difference to Microsoft's bottom line whether it actually works or not.

We need serious competition for desktop features, user interfaces, kernels, etc., and that's only going to happen when the market can pick and choose operating system components.

Re:google is EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

So ordinary users are supposed to understand this??

1. Stop a "service", that's black magic as far as most users are concerned.

2. Remove the settings of the Hard Drive will obliterate any customization applied there should they decide to go back to MS's implementation.

Try again with a more reasonable solution.

Re:Euphamism

[victorhooi]

Err, I'm sorry to say this, but you Sir, are an a*sehat...

Google is asking for a way to disable the Windows Indexer, which currently can't be disabled. And having *two* indexers running at the same time introduces a

And guess what, if somebody is actually installing Google Desktop, gee, gosh...maybe it's cause they want to actually try Google Desktop, rather than run it and the Windows Indexer at the same time. It's called making life easier for your users - you run the Google Desktop installer, and gosh, it installs it for you and turns off the in-built Windows Indexer. You un-install Google Desktop, and it turns the Windows Indexer back on. Not that hard, mate, really...(and yes, gee golly gosh, you can script something like that in an uninstaller).

Seriously, what is it with Google bashing lately, anyway? Everybody's making it sound like Google is seeding some kind of spyware that disables Windows Search (which, not that relevant, but I actually dislike it. I don't like Google Desktop either, or Spotlight...still haven't found the perfect search, and Beagle is a hog...lol), no, they're letting users who choose to install Google Desktop disable it so it doesn't slow your computer to a crawl.

Victor

PS: And for the record, it's spelt *euphemism*.

What do you mean you can't turn it off?

[anss123]

If you disable the indexing service it's by all means off or are you referring to the search box itself? It is not possible to remove the search box as far as I know, but if the index service is off it will only search the hard drive the old fashioned way (the Win95 way).

I don't know whats more disturbing

[Timesprout]

Google lying to push their desktop search with its close to the bone privacy policies or the way that most people so far have just taken whatever Google say about their major competitor as being fact. I know this is Slashdot but I would expect a supposedly clued up technical audience to be aware of how easy it is to disable windows search in Vista. Whats next? Will Google want Yahoo messenger disabled as well because it's a bit of a resource hog and that might impact on Google desktop search performance?

Even If google is evil!

[3seas]

So what does google have to do with MS's search engine always running?

Even if google was evil, I'd still want to be able to turn off a search engine created by a proven anti-trust violator.

Wouldn't you?

Just because people claim google is evil is no reason to dismiss an act of a part that has been proven evil.

There must be a lot of MS supporters responding to the article, for who could miss the obviousnesss of this.

The party bringing out the fact that MS's search engine is always on is itself not an evil act. Unless you work for MS.

Re:Even If google is evil!

[MickDownUnder]

It's called the windows indexing service.

http://www.xefteri.com/articles/show.cfm?id=2

It's been around for many years. You can switch it off.

Google is basically demanding Microsoft pull a service that has been around for pretty much ever. Well before google desktop search was even around. I think the US justice department is actually being quite sensible.

Nice try Google. I guess that'd be "Do no evil" with the caveat "Unless it's Microsoft then kick em where it counts."

hmm

[um... Lucas]

Without having read the article (sorry, i haven't had coffee yet), i have to say, I'm with Microsoft on this one. I can definetly see the anti-competitiveness of grafting a web browser or media player into the operating system, BUT for google to complain that the operating system includes a means of searching for files on the computer it's running on... that seems a bit babyish. Am I missing something? Should i read the original article?

Lesser of two evils...?

[jihadist]

Wait, which is the lesser of two evils here? Google are privacy-destroying voyeurs, and Microsoft are omnivore IP hogs. I'd like to find the lesser of two evils. Except, when I look into it, all they're doing is advancing market share so their shareholders are happy and everyone from the CEO to the janitor goes home richer. So are the people behind Microsoft and Google the evil? Or is it the system?

Why can't we admit that capitalism and good design are oppositional forces, and that we the people through our greed defeat ourselves?

Re:Thomas O. Barnett

[andydread]

How the hell is this strange. This is the Bush administration.
They put oil executives in charge of the EPA
they put antitrust defence lawyers in the Justice Dept.
They put drug company executives in charge of the FDA

I mean really now. Take a look here. http://www.iraqtimeline.com/bushcab.html

And maybe someone can lookup these clowns and see what their prior industry affiliation is http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Re:So?

[mh1997]

All this shows it that Microsoft paid more for their politicians than Google did.

Actually, all this shows is that Microsoft should have paid for their politicians a couple years ago, then there would have been no anti-trust case at all.

If the government really believed that Microsoft was a monopoly and doing evil, then why, when dealing with the government, do all documents have to be in Microsoft Office format? The US Government is large enough that if it switched to any other software, Microsoft's domination of the market would be severely cut.

Instead of fixing the "problem" without a lawsuit or legislation, politicians punished Microsoft for committing the greatest sin in politics - not paying off congress to the level that congress thought was required.

Rethink the "A.G.'s were Fired by GWB" Story

[mpapet]

Because this story is a good example of why the current administration is under such political heat for the often repeated and horribly mislabled "firing of Attorneys General."

It had only a little to do with the fact that the Administration couldn't come up with a consistent story. It had nothing to do with firings.

The current administration uses the office of the Attorney General as another way to pay back campaign contributors and intentionally alter the course of close district elections where Republicans aren't the clear leader. They also altered the rules such that over 400 people from the administration can communicate with the Justice Department regarding their work. (Versus the four that were allowed to do the same thing in the previous administration)

While there is still good reason to dislike Microsoft, the last appearance of any sense of Rule of Law as gone quietly into history. There is no power balancing provided by the Attorney General. The fox is now guarding the hen house. Microsoft is mere plankton compared to what the big fish have done to this country in about 20 years.

Re:Grep against Google

[HeroreV]

Why is slashdot full of trolls today?

Why would today be different from any other day?

Re:Thomas O. Barnett

[Qzukk]

What makes this wrong?

It's a conflict of interest.

Look at it this way, why don't we take your idea here and run with it. Let's put the rapists in charge of crisis centers and murderers in charge of prisons, after all, they have "background" in the field.

Re:Thomas O. Barnett

[AdamKG]

See, crazy me, I'd want a anti-trust prosecutor running anti-trust prosecutions.

But that's just me.

This is what Microsoft normally does

[Animats]

Historically, Microsoft has moved widely needed functions into their operating system and thereby eliminated the market for alternatives. When they did that for disk compression, Stacker went out of business. When they did it for TCP/IP networking, Trumpet Winsock disappeared. When they did it for email, Eudora stopped being a viable business. When they did it for browsers, Netscape Inc. went from a dot-com success to collapse.

Right now, they're doing it for anti-virus tools, which threatens McAfee, and desktop search, which threatens Google. They'll probably win on both of those, because there's little incentive to install a competitor's tools if those come bundled with the operating system, and because those tools can be tightly integrated with the operating system.

Re:This is what Microsoft normally does

[Archangel Michael]

.....

Which is why as a software company (if I were one), I'd never write a damn peice of software for Microsoft ... EVER. If whatever innovative software I created was targeted by MS, I'd have no chance to compete.

Dance with the devil, then you can expect to rot in hell, when you no longer serve his purposes.

Sucks doesn't it? Why any company would write software for MS who can and often does poach designs and ideas from other companies, is beyond me. Seriously.

Re:This is what Microsoft normally does

[DavidD_CA]

This argument has been going on for almost a decade now.

As a consumer, I say GOOD. Because if all that stuff wasn't bundled into the operating system, then I'd have to get it all myself, and often pay for it.

The MacOS includes all that stuff, and more, for free when you buy OS X. Why can't I have that when I buy Windows Vista?

And there is nothing stopping me from deciding to 1) purchase a competing product and installing it, or 2) not purchasing Vista at all and getting a machine with Linux.

Re:This is what Microsoft normally does

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer, I say GOOD. Because if all that stuff wasn't bundled into the operating system, then I'd have to get it all myself, and often pay for it.

Umm, I think you're confused. What you meant to say was:

As a complete idiot, I say GOOD. Because I'd like the illusion of choice rather than actual choice. If Microsoft can systematically wipe out everything except Mac OS, which will only ever run on five percent of all hardware, then I can pretend I'd have a choice if I didn't like the way Microsoft dicks me.

Does that about cover it, or would you want to add something about how Microsoft doesn't bother to improve on the features it absorbs once it's destroyed the competitor/victim using its illegal monopoly?

Re:Grep against Google

[Macthorpe]

Instant Search merely interacts with the indexing service. If you turn Windows Search off (which is trivial) then indexing stops and the Instant Search reverts to doing a file-by-file search a la Win98/95, which is exactly what Google's Desktop Search doesn't do.

You're right to say that the Instant Search box cannot be removed, but Google are saying that the indexing that is being done interferes with their own indexing, which in fact it does not as Windows Search indexing only occurs on idle CPU cycles, so Google's will be given a higher priority. They're also saying you can't deactivate it, which you can - GDS modifies the Services when it sets itself to start on boot, so it's once again trivial to include in that a method of deactivating Windows Search. As I mentioned in another post, they tacitly admit that GDS works fine by providing Sidebar plugins and other miscellaneous extras that are designed specifically for Vista.

Google's arguments here are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst - I have a feeling they're trying to get Windows Search removed merely to cripple Windows searching and create a niche which doesn't currently exist for them in Vista.

Re:Grep against Google

[All_One_Mind]

Well, I for one have run Vista, and quite extensively, and I can speak from experience that turning off the search indexing in Vista is a trivial task that can be accomplished through disabling the service, which as many have noted, is a relatively simple task for any human and/or installer to do.

I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, it's just that in this case, Google are being complete idiots.

The morons are out in force at /. today

[Master of Transhuman]

The entire first page of posts is one repetitive list:

Moron 1: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 2: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 3: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 4: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 5: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 6: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 7: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 8: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 9: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 10: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 11: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 12: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 12: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 14: You CAN turn it off.

Moron 15: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

Moron 16: You CAN turn it off.

There's your whole first page...

Morons...

U.S. attorney general is in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thomas Barnett, the assistant U.S. attorney general in charge of antitrust issues, sent a memo last month to state attorneys general across the nation, seeking to persuade them to reject Google's complaint."

How is sending this memo not a crime?