Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft May Be Investigated By Attorneys General
Null Nihils writes "Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has announced that a group of state attorneys general will decide later this week whether to pursue legal action against Microsoft over allegations of anticompetitive conduct that were brought on by Google. From the article: 'Google has complained that Microsoft's new operating system puts it, and other rivals, at a disadvantage. Google said that Vista makes it harder for consumers to use non-Microsoft versions of a desktop search function, which enables users to search the contents of their hard drives. A group of state attorneys general including Connecticut and California is now determining how to react to the claims made by Google.'"
This can only mean:
- or -
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If Chrysler decided to design a car that worked better with specific parts, who would complain. If MS designs their OS so their desktop search works better, great. If Google really wants to be a competitor let them spend all that evil filthy lucre they've amassed and build thier own stinking OS that they can lock MS out of.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Blumenthal is using a tactic that another famous Connecticut Attorney General used to create a political career from a position (AG) that's not usually very visible. He went after the insurance companies, cut some half-assed deals that looked like they helped the consumer, made himself look like a hero to the little guy and then ran for Democratic Senator of CT and has never left - one close call last year. Yes, it's Joe Lieberman.
Blumenthal is just using the same tactic on a different industry (ies) 30 years later. I guarantee you, Blumenthal will be running for Governor, Senator, or something in the near future and these investigations are nothing but ways to raise his name recognition among the public.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
couldn't google just put an option to do it in thier software (i'm pretty sure service control is documented in the winapi docs).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
In a way, Google's complaint mirrors that of Netscape but instead of browsers, it's search applications.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Disabling the service is not a good option for Windows Vista because the OS uses the Indexing Service for the search function built into the shell.
However, it's hard to argue that Windows shouldn't provide an indexing service when OSX etc do. It's pretty well documented too, API-wise -- its only problem is that it consumes more resources than Google's indexer.
Google's complaint does seem to be a case of sour grapes here. Perhaps they're simply retaliating for the time when Microsoft raised antitrust complaints about its DoubleClick acquisition?
No Windows can stay the same. The idea is they can sell windows with anything in it that helps them sell more copies of windows aka Note Pad but they can't add anything that helps them sell other products like Office, IIS etc.
So you have a windows company A that can only sell windows and windows server edition.
And you have windows company B that can sell IIS, XBOX, MS Word, MS Office, MS mouse, Visual Studio... but not windows.
The idea is that windows could include IE but if Microsoft is not selling IIS then they don't have any reason to care if some is using other tools. So Microsoft can include anything to sell more copies of windows but they have no reason to include things to crush the competition because they can't compete with other non OS companies.
PS: The problem with this is that they would go the Red Hat route and start including basic apps for most things like SSH, FTP, and over time they become the same company but force you to buy Note Pad XL their new crappy word processor.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why is Microsoft "obligated" to make it easier for their competitors?
It's simple, really. A free market is only "free" inasmuch as the consumer is in control. That is, as long as the old middle-school "supply-and-demand, build-a-better-mousetrap" balance is maintained, you have a more-or-less free market.
It has been noted throughout history that when on company achieves a stranglehold on a market, there is no competition. Corporate control of a market is much more sure than government control of a market, because a corporation doesn't have to worry about parliamentary procedure, and whatnot. They get to do what they want, when they want, without the facade of transparency and participation required by many governments.
In this case, Microsoft has a stranglehold on a market. They have used dirty tricks to maintain their stranglehold, too, such as the deals made with all PC suppliers back in the 90s, or the specific targeting of competing products, such as Lotus 123 and DR-DOS.
Consider this: if Ford purchased up all the gas stations in the US, and modified them so that Chevys couldn't fill up, and made deals with all gas-pump manufacturers and all petroleum companies to sell only to Ford, would Ford's behavior be ethical? Legal? Good for the individual (that is, consumers or citizens, whichever way you like to view yourself)?
Microsoft is in the position of Ford owning all the gas pumps.
Microsoft isn't obligated to make things easier for their competitors. They're obligated to not intentionally make things harder.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
While I am not a big fan of Microsoft or their products, I think they should be able to include whatever features they want in their OS. Is it anticompetitive for Microsoft to include a debugger in Visual Studio? Why haven't people complained about the bundling of Notepad, Wordpad, Paint, Calculator, Internet Explorer, or the Backup utility. These all reflect other utilities available for Windows for which there are alternative solutions. Some of you may actually believe that the OS should come with nothing installed which enhances productivity. Honestly, in a free market economy, I don't see why companies keep running to "daddy" whenever Microsoft starts making peoples lives more convenient by improving their OS. I also think it is unfair that Microsoft gets all the flack, and Apple is left by the wayside. Spotlight has been available for a while, they have many more useful utilities bundled with their OS than Windows. The only reason the reason the finger is directed at Microsoft is that they possess the largest consumer base. How about pc makers who bundle and OS with their hardware. I mean, people should have a choice as to what OS they install. Isn't it anticompetitive for Dell to bundle their PCs with Windows. In fact, why should software be the only realm in which this applies. Why aren't Gerber and Leatherman being sued for their anticompetitive multitools? Better yet, people who bundle ratchets with sockets, those guys from Craftsman are trying to corner the market on sockets! I guess my point is that there is no way to prevent people from providing packaged deals. That is a major marketing strategy that I cannot see changing any time soon. And I believe that if Microsoft is causing Google concerns, they should step up to the plate and provide a competitive solution. If they build a desktop search that is compelling enough for other people to give it a shot, they don't deserve to be in the market. Maybe they should try releasing their own OS, or maybe they should just stick to what they are already good at, risking people's security on the web rather than on our desktops.
Lawmakers tell people to do a lot of things. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to order arbitrary actions on a company and the legislative branch hasn't reached the required number of votes to make a difference. People bitch and cry about civil rights eroding, but you'll know they are gone when some unelected political appointee US attorney is allowed to arbitrarily dictate to private entities what they can and can't do.
Besides this complaint comes from Google. A company that disregards other people's copyrights and is as anticompetitive as any legit business on the planet. Cry me a river.
In this case the issue is not that they included the search feature, it's that they artificially made it more difficult for other parties to compete with their product. The question of whether this should be included in an OS isn't an issue here.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Google are the ones who make a Windows-only product - why are they complaining now? It is the same story every time: they strengthen the Windows franchise and then complain that Microsoft has an unfair advantage.
Wow, that was madly irrelevant. What your parent is trying to say is that giving 3rd party apps hookins to the OS opens the way for malware to hook into your OS. This has nothing to do with vulnerabilities because malware doesn't necessarely behave different that regular 3rd party apps.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
It seems to me that Google is trying to beat Microsoft at its own game. Unfortunately, I have my doubts about Google being able to pull it off. Especially since it would require quite a bit of Evil(TM).
In Mexico we have a saying that goes:
"El enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo" and means something like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". I guess that if Google is "Evil(TM)" against Microsoft I would not cry a bit or be sad for that matter. The problem I see is that once Google is evil against MS and the shareholders see what can be achieved by being evil, then Google wont be able to stop being evil to continue its stock prices growing (which is what shareholders only care about).
Something similar to what happened to Slashdot after they removed the comments of Scientology, once you do it one time, you can not put a straight face saying "we do not remove any comment"... because any company willingly enough will come and tell you that you already did it once and hence you can do it again.
I believe this issues are one of the few which have a Black or White stand.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
The anti-competitive cases are usually about getting Microsoft to focus on their core functionality, like the security of the operating system, rather than write up stupid little weather bug clones for the desktop. Get M$ out of browser space, out of desktop search, get them to quit trying to own everything the user touches and quit using their monopoly status to ship this crap that snuffs out any market emerging on the desktop.
No Microsoft does not deserve any kind of forgiveness for shipping crap, no business does. Yes programming is hard, but that doesn't mean it will never approach something secure. Seriously, complaining that security bugs are just something to live with because it's "too hard" is some of the whiniest crap I've ever heard. Doctors don't say that can't cure cancer, they say they are working on it, it's a matter of professionalism and pride in your trade. You don't leave dirty dishes in the sink because it is too hard to wash them, grow up, demand more, have some damn standards.
I know this is a bit trollish, for that I apologize, but letting this kind of crap slide is ridiculous if the bug is known work on it, if it's a security bug then it takes precedence over others. Don't whine and say it's too hard, it only floats because noobs think computers are magic.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
I was talking of doing just what the GPL allows :
... so that they can pull an OSX and start over, leaving no one dead in the water when it comes to running legacy Win32/win64 code.
1. Take WINE source
2. Make it Just Work
3. Publish source to Wine That Works
4. Include Binary In Next Platform
Oh, and I have to inform you that Apple happily distributes GCC (it is GPL software, right?) in MacOSX.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
We have the same saying here in the states. The only problem is that there is no guarantee that the enemy of your enemy is truly your friend. Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. (Frighteningly, this can occasionally make your enemy a temporary ally.)
In any case, we also have the term "collateral damage". It refers to all the things that may be unintentionally damaged or destroyed by extreme measures. I can guarantee you that the moment Google compromises their "Do No Evil" policy, they will begin to harm their customers. Whether it will be on purpose or by accident is irrelevant. We'll still be just as harmed.
And in case you think that can't happen, just consider how much personal data Google is sitting on. Now imagine that Google escalates their legal war with Microsoft to a point where a judge orders some or all of that data seized. Google's veil of secrecy won't help them when FBI agents knock down their doors and walk away with their servers.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Show me where Windows "intentionally hobbles" google desktop search or blocks it from working, or shuts Google out in any way....
I just downloaded and installed Google Desktop Search on my Vista-based laptop right here, while I was writing this comment. Seems to work just fine. Now, tell me, what's the problem again?
ìì!
"Desktop search has always been a feature of the Windows operating system, even before Google existed
You're not seriously comparing Google Desktop Search to this:
Click Start, Search, For Files or Folders, on The Internet, Using Microsoft Outlook, For People, MORE, Look for Files or Folders Named, Containing Text", Look In, My Documents, Desktop, My Computer, Local Hard Drives , Browse !!!!!
It's just a repeat of what they did with Internet Explorer/Netscape and Real Player/Media Player. There's no technical reason Google Search and MS search can co-exist on the desktop, but that ain't the way it's going to be. Makes itself the default search engine that can't be turned off?
was Re:Desktop search was always there
davecb5620@gmail.com