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.'"

Comments

what's the bet that

[oliverthered]

If this manages to get through google will be dead in the water by the time anything's done about it.

Re:what's the bet that

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless, Google have misrepresented this entire issue.

1) They complained to the DoJ/AG without informing Microsoft of the issue and attempting to have it solved,

2) Windows Search is designed to only operate during idle cycles specifically so it will not interfere with any other running program including Google Desktop Search,

4) Windows Search can be disabled from the Control Panel, the command line, and if Google could be bothered they can disable it using the Services API during an install of their software, and

5) Google have even coded Vista Sidebar widgets that are designed to interact with GDS on Vista, which makes their complaint make even less sense.

I'm sorry to hijack your comment but if anybody else could manage to be a little more informed on the issue rather than immediately jump to the standard "anti-competitive monopoly blah-blah" response then maybe a more intellectual debate could ensue.

Re:what's the bet that

[AKAImBatman]

The last paragraph of the article is extremely telling, I think:

The issue is the latest in an escalation between two of the heaviest hitters in the tech world.

In April, Microsoft urged the federal competition authorities to thoroughly investigate Google's acquisition of online advertising brokerage DoubleClick, after being beaten by Google in closing a deal for the company. The Federal Trade Commission has since confirmed it is investigating the matter.

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).

Re:what's the bet that

[c_forq]

Your step three is missing...

Re:what's the bet that

[xtracto]

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.

Re:what's the bet that

[AKAImBatman]

In Mexico we have a saying that goes [...] "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

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.

Re:what's the bet that

[gkhan1]

I think you've summed up the issue pretty well. I like Google a hell of a lot more than Microsoft, but this complaint is utterly ridiculous. It shouldn't be brought to the courts. If it does, Microsoft will win. As they should.

Unfair standard?

[elrous0]

I hate to be a MS defender here (Linux Gods please forgive me) but isn't it a little unfair to ride MS's ass for security problems all the time and then also expect them to open up their kernal, file system, security, etc. to every damn third party developer out there? Should a third party developer have just as much access to Vista as MS themselves?

Re:Unfair standard?

[babbling]

It's not unfair because it is entirely possible to write libraries that are not riddled with security flaws. You are trying to relate two things that are almost completely unrelated.

Re:Unfair standard?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If MSFT is not competing in the applications arena and sells only the OS then it can say "I am locking up the kernel and you guys play by this rule". But MSFT is competing in the office, gaming, database, search, and email arenas. And it is using its monopoly in the OS arena to unfairly benefit its own application products.

What gives complaints against MSFT legitimacy is that it has 1. monopoly in the OS marke. 2. It has used its monopoly to unfairly undermine its competitors in other markers. MSFT can easily get out of all these restrictions and actions by breaking the company into two pieces. One is the OS company and the other is the applications company. And the OS company will give equal access to all vendors in the applications arena.

Please understand the issue is not the quantum of access given to the OS. It is the unequal access given to other vendors.

Re:Unfair standard?

[WombatDeath]

My understanding is that Google want MS to provide a way for the average user to turn off the MS indexing, to avoid unnecessarily consuming resources by running search engines from both Google and MS side by side. By 'average user' they mean someone who isn't familiar with tinkering around in the services widget.

Re:Unfair standard?

[petermgreen]

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).

Re:Unfair standard?

[UnknowingFool]

That would be unfair but that is not the specific complaint of Google. From what I read (not the linked article), Google is finding issues with Vista's built-in search. From a AP article in USA Today:

The Vista operating system, which became widely available in January, includes a desktop search function that competes with a free program Google introduced in 2004. Several other companies also offer desktop search applications.

Besides bogging down competing programs, Google alleged Microsoft had made it too complicated to turn off the desktop search feature built into Vista.

With its allegations, Google hopes to show that Microsoft isn't complying with a 2002 settlement of an antitrust case that concluded the world's largest software maker had leveraged the Windows operating system to throttle competition.

The consent decree requires Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft to ensure its rivals can build products that run smoothly on Windows -- something that Google says isn't happening.

"The search boxes built throughout Vista are hard-wired to Microsoft's own desktop search product, with no way for users to choose an alternate provider," Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said in a statement issued Monday.

In a way, Google's complaint mirrors that of Netscape but instead of browsers, it's search applications.

Re:Unfair standard?

[roseanne]

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?

Re:Unfair standard?

[CastrTroy]

MS doesn't have to open up their code. Just their protocols and APIs. If you don't know how that's different from opening up the code, then you aren't qualified to comment on the subject.

Re:Unfair standard?

[will_die]

Microsoft desktop search is used by other microsoft products for its searching. For example if you want to do email searching in outlook 2007 you have to go and download microsoft desktop search, this is on windows XP.
So if you want to do searches in your email and also use google desktop search you are in trouble since both search engine now have to be running and scanning everything.

Re:Unfair standard?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is true no one would buy a car without tires. Or even a radio. Would you let auto makers off the hook so easily if they tried to make it impossible to install a thirdparty tire or radio? Infact the auto makers did that and it took lots of legislative action in the 70s to open up the "connectors and specs" to level the playing field, (or so I understand from a slashdot post.)

Now how far should the automaker go? Should you be able to install a thirdparty glove box? A steering wheel? or a gear box and transmission? The automobile is quite tangible and most consumers are well informed and they vote with their dollars in these questions. If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it. It is possible the glove box (and possibly the windshield) was thirdparty add-on way back in 1910s. And eventually it got incorporated into the automobile.

But in the computer arena, the public is not well informed. It would take a generation of kids who grew up with computers all their life to distinguish between what is the "glove box" and what is a "tire" in a computer. At that point we might not need any legislative action. But right now, to preseve the endangered species of independent software developers and application developers we need some basic action from the courts/legislation.

Re:Unfair standard?

[ozmanjusri]

So, practically speaking, how is MS supposed to give third party developers "equal access" with so many possible combinations of applications?

Fully documeneted and open APIs. Documented and open protocols. Documented and open file formats. They're required by the terms of their prosecution in the European Union to provide this documentation and keep refusing. The US department of Justice has asked them to provide the protocols to potential competitors.

Microsoft has repeatedly refused to comply properly with these legal requirements. The answer to your question is simple. Microsoft should do what lawmakers have been telling them to do for years. Provide potential competitors with enough information to interoperate with the OS as effectively as MS themselves.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Retric]

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.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Score Whore]

There's no such thing as a "convicted monopolist". Microsoft was found to be in breach of anti-competitive business practices. Given that this is slashdot and we can't use piracy (for copyright violations) or theft (for copyright violations) or Linux (for the name of the OS), you're not going to be allowed to use stupid assed phrases like "convicted monopolists".

Until there is an explicit definition of what an OS is and what exactly is included and that definition becomes the rule of what OS vendors can include and 100% of OS vendors are under the gun to match that definition exactly, then Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want with their OS. Google has billions of dollars, if they don't like Microsoft's OS then they can damn well make their own and stop trying to force MS to provide support for Google's business model and profit margin.

Re:Unfair standard?

[metlin]

It's not unfair because it is entirely possible to write libraries that are not riddled with security flaws. You are trying to relate two things that are almost completely unrelated.

Please. If you think that writing a complex system (especially one requiring some serious backwards compatibility, such as Windows) of libraries is accomplished without any security flaws, you probably haven't written or worked with very many real-world applications.

Writing 100% bulletproof applications in the real-world (especially given customer and consumer expectations) is next to impossible, not unless you were doing small and simple things and you've enormous amount of time and money at your disposal. No matter how much you test and secure your system or how bulletproof you make it, there is almost always a point where usability versus security becomes an issue, or compatibility versus security becomes an issue.

There was a time when Microsoft's products were riddled with security flaws, but over the years, their platforms and offerings have stabilized considerably. If anything, for the amount of complex stuff that they write, their security flaws are hardly a surprise.

I mean, sure, you can have something like OpenBSD, but just how usable do you think such a system would be? Consider the kernel, the UI, the file system, assorted applications (browser, office applications) etc. and you'd begin to see how hard it becomes to keep the system locked tight with that level of complexity (not to mention scalability).

I know that it's all fun to bash Microsoft on Slashdot and all that, but sometimes I just wish that people would just get a grip on reality, not their ideal, tiny little world.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Score Whore]

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.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Red Flayer]

If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it.

Unless, of course, the marketplace is doiminated by Ford. That's the whole gist of the problem.

It has nothing to do with public education, it has to do with the inability of a market to operate more-or-less freely, due to domination of one sector by one firm (Microsoft, in this case).

I understand what you're getting at -- defining what is peripheral (like the tires) and defining what is intrinsic to the product (like the glovebox). This is not so cloudy for computers as you make it seem -- operating systems do not need to include a web browser (MS's ridiculous assertions aside), and thus they are peripheral to the OS. They also do not need to include search capabilities -- MS could easily release their search agent as an accessory, instead of bundled.

At any rate, discussing what is extrinsic/intrinsic to a Ford automobile has *zero* relevance to what we are discussing, since Ford does not have a de facto monopoly on cars sold in the US, which means that the market's ability to opt for a competitor's product does not translate to the computer issue.

Re:Unfair standard?

[TheNetAvenger]

So if you want to do searches in your email and also use google desktop search you are in trouble since both search engine now have to be running and scanning everything.


And people are STILL believing this bullshit?

Google can install, and set itself as the default search engine that works inside Outlook, the Desktop, OneNote, etc. There are clear APIs that Google can use on both sides to hook into the application. Google can also TURN OFF THE MS SEARCH ENGINE COMPLETELY.

Google is pissing on the intelligence of SlashDot users that don't spend enough time 'developing' Windows solutions that deal with these issues. i.e. They are lying to the AGs and the public, and YET it seems people here are STUPID enough to flat out believe Google, when everything they are stating is either inaccurate or a lie.

The ONLY other explaination is Google's developers are TOO FREAKING stupid to live and shouldn't be developing Desktop Search software, as this is EASY stuff and there is NO REASON to EVER have both Search engines running at the same time, whether the users are using Office 2007, XP, or even Vista.

All MS Search products can BE REPLACED and turned off by Google's product. PERIOD.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Crimsonjade]

It depends on where your focus is. OpenBSD has its focus on security first and foremost. Could Microsoft had done the same? Probably, but I think it is too late now. Should we forgive Microsoft for all their past security flaws because they are making (somewhat) of an effort? I would say yes and lets move forward, except for the fact that we have recently seem some pretty ridiculous security holes. So no, it is not really an unfair standard.

Re:Unfair standard?

[nstlgc]

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.

Re:Unfair standard?

[aichpvee]

especially given customer and consumer expectations

If the customer expectations weren't so low they might be forced to fix some of underlying problems that put so many bugs in their software.

Re:Unfair standard?

[drinkypoo]

Please. If you think that writing a complex system (especially one requiring some serious backwards compatibility, such as Windows) of libraries is accomplished without any security flaws, you probably haven't written or worked with very many real-world applications.

This is true. So Microsoft should stop lying and claiming to always use proper bounds-checking string routines when they clearly do not, as they create so very many buffer overflows, and they should stop claiming that they have the most secure OS, et cetera.

Re:Unfair standard?

[cyphercell]

If anything, for the amount of complex stuff that they write, their security flaws are hardly a surprise.

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.

/car analogy/ If Microsoft was a car company, not only would you have only one choice of make, model and year, they would also pitch a fit when someone went about designing new nuts and bolts, car stereos, gps units, windshield wipers, all the while ignoring complaints of exploding cars, because they already have that segment covered. \car analogy\

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.

Re:Unfair standard?

[peipas]

You do not need to install Windows Desktop Search to search in Outlook 2007 in XP. In fact, I opted against it and unticked the checkbox for it to stop asking me.

You can still use the traditional Advanced Find by visiting the Tools Menu -> Instant Search -> Advanced Find, or CTRL-SHIFT-F, or probably a whole pile of context menus.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Corwn of Amber]

I was talking of doing just what the GPL allows :

1. Take WINE source
2. Make it Just Work
3. Publish source to Wine That Works
4. Include Binary In Next Platform ... 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.

Oh, and I have to inform you that Apple happily distributes GCC (it is GPL software, right?) in MacOSX.

ok

[froggero1]

I predict the lawyers will be the only winners here.

Also, FTA:

"In April, Microsoft urged the federal competition authorities to thoroughly investigate Google's acquisition of online advertising brokerage DoubleClick, after being beaten by Google in closing a deal for the company. The Federal Trade Commission has since confirmed it is investigating the matter."

Wouldn't that case be dropped now that Microsoft bought that other ad company for an obsene amount of money?

Dupe & Duplicity

[Macthorpe]

Not only is this a dupe, but Google's argument was already shown in the comments to that article to be a complete sham.

Have Google actually deigned to comment on the issue yet? Last time I checked they were shunning any reasonable debate on the matter.

Which means...

[Billosaur]

Sunday's New York Times reported that the federal government had weighed in on the matter, urging state attorneys general who had received Google's complaint not to investigate Microsoft further. According to the article, a memo from Thomas O. Barnett, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, had been circulated to some state-level competition authorities.

This can only mean:

1. Microsoft is adhering to its deal with the DOJ and they have investigated the matter and find Google's complaint without merit
   - or -
2. The DOJ is trying to keep the state Attorneys General from getting involved in what they regard as a Federal matter

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:Which means...

[nomadic]

This can only mean: Microsoft is adhering to its deal with the DOJ and they have investigated the matter and find Google's complaint without merit - or - The DOJ is trying to keep the state Attorneys General from getting involved in what they regard as a Federal matter It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

-or more likely-
The anti-trust division of the DOJ is run by libertarian free-market zealots who have no problem disregarding the law to further their own ideology.

It's MS OS

[WED Fan]

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.

Re:Boo f***ing hoo

[geoffrobinson]

You don't have to. But if you wanted the choice it would be unfeasible for you. You are missing the overreaching concern. It isn't about what you in particular want but about choices for everyone in the context of a monopoly.

Wrong issue

[rlp]

I'd rather see the AG's go after Microsoft for their anti-Linux patent FUD. The DOJ is completely asleep at the wheel (or bought off) on this issue. Maybe the EU will do something about it.

Difference: monopoly

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Did Chrysler increase their market share by 90% last night? If not, the difference between Chrysler and MS is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist with a very high marketshare of desktop computers while Chrysler is a small player in the US auto market. This means that MS is subject to laws and rules that, in general, Chrysler is not. One of them is leveraging their market share in one market (operating systems) into others (search tools, browsers, etc). If MS is using anticompetitive tactics to render Google's products less capable of working with MS's operating system, to MS's advantage, that could be illegal.

Note that if Chrysler made 95% of the cars on the road, and Chrysler intentionally restricted their cars so that they would only work with Chrysler-blessed stereos, that would be illegal as well.

Re:Difference: monopoly

[WED Fan]

If MS has such a crappy OS, and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE on Slashdot can see it? Why don't they come up with a viable, commercial solution to take down the giant? It can be done. You just have to come up with something the consumers, your target market, wants... WANTS to buy.

Instead of alienating them with geek-boy-speak and socio-economic masturbatory fantasies by RMS, P R O D U C E something the buying public will want to use, can use, out of the box, and that other software makers will support by providing other software titles that people will actually buy.

Now, some of you may not want to hear that, but its the only way to really put a dent in the MS market. Are you up for it, or are you going to sit back with your copies of an RMS jack-off rag, GNU/BOY, and fantasize of an encounter you're never really going to have?

Re:Difference: monopoly

[daeg]

But in this case there is nothing illegal about it. It's a file search! There are numerous ways to turn it off, both user-imitated and automated. Google Desktop's installer could simply disable it and replace it.

I like Google tools as much as the next guy, and generally distrust MS... but.. it's a file search. Searching files is something an operating system does.

I can only imagine Google's crying if MS had left their new queryable file system in place.

Political Tactic:nothing more.

[iknownuttin]

I predict the lawyers will be the only winners here.

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.

Re:Details?

[UnknowingFool]

The article was not specific enough. There is an AP article that has more details.

Is it any easier to replace Apple's search?

[Gilatrout]

My problem with this is not if it actually easier or not to replace Apples search, but the entire presumption that a company cannot put x feature into y product becuase it's hard for someone else. If MSFT wants to put in a search to be competative with APPL, then by all means they have that right, and they are IMO under no obligation to make it simple to replace. What they are obligated to do is allow 3rd parties to develop and install alternatives. The customer can then choose which implementation is better. This choice in no way requires that one implementation must not be coexist with the other.

Bullshit

[toby]

So you're a fan of security by obscurity?

Ever notice how the really secure systems (*BSD, Solaris, etc) have every line of code public?

PS. It's spelled "kernel".

Re:Bullshit

[KarmaMB84]

Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations. Microsoft has simply made a LOT of trade offs to make their system "user friendly". I also suspect we'll find all the anti-trust business holding them back from ever fixing it for fear of inviting third parties to sue them.

Re:Bullshit

[TheRaven64]

Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations UNIX was code-visible (not Free Software or Open Source) from the time of release. It was not taken seriously as a secure platform until a good twenty years after it was first launched. Even more modern releases have had their share of security problems. The number of security holes that were fixed by Theo De Raadt and friends in between forking NetBSD and releasing the first version of OpenBSD are staggering.

Why is it

[toby]

That every antitrust story is tagged politics but never crime?

A curious clue to contemporary American thought patterns?

I don't understand the complaint

[the_humeister]

Should TCP/IP stack vendors also complain that Microsoft includes a TCP/IP stack in Vista? Yes there was a time when a TCP/IP stack was a separate product that had to be purchased, even on unix systems.

Lame

[MrCrassic]

I really hope that this case doesn't get taken to the heights of Microsoft's anti-trust suits did because it's really not worth it...

Mac OS X includes desktop-wide search functions. I am not sure as to how difficult they are to "turn off," but it comes with the OS to provide ease of use for the user instead of having to find third-party utilities to do the same job as Windows users of the past have had to.

Now, Microsoft decides to include desktop searching functions as well. If I am not mistaken, these functions can be turned off, but that does not matter. Google is then planning to sue Microsoft for unfair competition because their Desktop Search Application is no longer useful?

If Google's primary argument in this case is that the integrated desktop search is too difficult to turn off, they better have pretty good lawyesr that can establish a clear and persuasive definition of what it means to "turn off" something. I'm pretty sure that if Google truly wanted to, they could establish an option within their own program (or set a default option) to turn off the Windows searching mechanism. There are also plenty of instructions that could be written to turn off the searching ability. I could go on with this, but the point here is that this main argument is a weak one that will get them nowhere even before the gavel hits the desk.

Google has a ton of applications that are universally useful; why must they target something that MIcrosoft finally got right?

Where does the OS begin?

[nootron]

Ok, IE integration I can see being a problem. But searching files? Isn't this a core feature of an OS? Whats next, suing MS because Windows allows one to store files? Or maybe Maxtor can sue MS because Windows allows you to format hard drives?

Google turning evil

[Bullfish]

Frankly, I don't blame MS for locking up the kernel. We all wanted that right? Security, remember that? At the same time as Google has grown it has shown all the earmarks of becoming what they said they wouldn't be, and it started with the desktop search. Now they are being accused of poor privacy protection, collaborating with censors...

I don't want google or yahoo or anyone else searching my hard drive.

We have seen this before

[Anon-Admin]

1) MS investigated by the AG's of several states.
2) MS taken to court by the states.
3) Federal government takes case away from states claiming federal jurisdiction. Then drops antitrust case due to pressure from executive branch.
4) MS Profits!

I guess we can drop the ??? on this one.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[illumin8]

If a kid didn't play fair with you, did you run and bitch to your parents every minute of the day, or did you eventually learn not to play with the kid.

What if the kid owned over 90% of all the toys in the playground and only let you play with the crappy blocks unless you were his friend?

RTFOAs

[durnurd]

(O: Other)

While the article posted doesn't necessarily make it entirely clear what Google is complaining about, I had the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just that a search function existed in Vista, as there has always been. So take a look at some other articles if you really want to know what the complaint is about. I found this:

In a 50-page document Google submitted to the Court, the search provider contends that Vista's desktop search, which is separate from internet search, limits users abilities to run Google's desktop search instead. Basically, Google says Microsoft's new OS only permits users to search Microsoft compatible information, such as e-mail.

A Google spokesperson said in a statement that Microsoft Vista "violates the consent decree" and that its nearly impossible to turn off. "There is no visible way for users to choose an alternate search provider," the Google spokesman stated.

Where do you draw the line?

[qweqwe321]

At what point do you draw the line between "something that should be included in an OS" and "anti-competitive behavior"?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Paradigm_Complex]

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded.

[Tony]

Why no complaints about Calculator or Notepad? Why no complaints about Hyperterminal?

Because you can easily replace them? Because Microsoft hasn't limited the ability to run other programs, such as Putty?

Why isn't Google complaining about Linux's find?

Because the GNU/Linux developers haven't intentionally hobbled Google's ability to write a search system for GNU/Linux?

Apple is far more anti-competitive than MS? Why doesn't anyone hassle them?

Uhm... how do you mean? Is Apple in a dominant position, and capable of using its dominant position to force others out of business?

This knee-jerk windows hating grows so fucking tiresome and is so transparent it is not even funny.

The thing that grows tiresome for me is watching Microsoft use the same old illegal tricks to put competitors at a disadvantage, rather than competing on merit. (The trick to a "free market" is competing on merit, not market dominance.)

How about taking care of something that matters such as the obvious price fixing in the gasoline market?

Fuck, yeah.

Fucking democratic governments and laws - completely useless and corrupt. But oh, you get the illusion that your vote matters... wake up dipshits, you've been taken for a ride.

Fuckin' A yeah!

Who's competing who?

[Deathlizard]

In a way, Google's complaint mirrors that of Netscape but instead of browsers, it's search applications.

Not exactly.

In the Netscape case, they had an established product, then MS started to compete. In this case, Vista (originally Longhorn) had a powerful search functionality built in since it's inception. (2001) In fact that was one of the first features that was announced about Vista. Even Windows 2000 and above had text search indexing (indexing service) integrated, although it's not as powerful as the indexers today, it still was in the OS.

Google's desktop beta was released in October 2004. Even the complete Vista overhaul (which happened in August 2004) happened before Google's Desktop was released to beta.

The other thing that needs to be asked is, "Does this deep inclusion severely hurt Google's bottom line overall?" and the answer is probably not. Unlike Netscape, where much of it's revenue was generated by Navigator, GDS is a very small revenue generator for google Vs it's other properties, Especially Vs Google Search or Google AdSense. I'd bet the Google Toolbar has more market penetration than Google Desktop, and the Security/privacy issues that were brought up by the press against GDS couldn't have helped it's penetration as well.

Anti-trust

[Tony]

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.

Re:Anti-trust

[radl33t]

The problem I have is that people entertain the notion that we have free markets. Airlines, defense, auto, construction, energy [electricity and oil], pharma, agriculture, telecommunications, biomedical, software, banking, etc etc etc. Our entire economy [all major industries] are out of control with monopolists and oligopolists that collude to exploit the system in anyway they can. Its absurd and unfair to clamp down on a single company for doing what a corporation is suppose to do under the current system. The system is broken.

The problem isn't Microsoft, they just serve as a brilliant example. Punishing them accomplishes little except temporarily placating a bunch of narrow minded geeks.. IMO, industry wide collusion between corporations is a much bigger problem and it essentially defines our economy.

Google should STFU

[pyite69]

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.

No

[sid0]

Am I correct in understanding that in Vista, the web-based msn search engine crawls your hard drive?
You are incorrect.

is it a build in search engine? (ie. daemon running on the local machine)
Yes, and it can easily be turned off. Google is being moronic here, crying for the sake of crying.

Are you aware that Google is lying?

[sid0]

MICROSOFT HASN'T LIMITED GOOGLE'S ABILITY TO RUN GOOGLE DESKTOP SEARCH.

Microsoft hasn't "intentionally hobbled" GDS!

It's very easy to turn off Vista search indexing. There is an API to use for Google itself!

Google is lying.

Re:Absurd!

[Todd Knarr]

This whole flap isn't about Microsoft merely including products in Vista. It's about them including their products in Vista and also locking Vista down to use only Microsoft's products for certain purposes even when Microsoft themselves provide and use an API specifically designed to allow for seamless substitution of service providers. It's as if Microsoft let you install any word processing software you wanted but no matter what settings you changed or what you told the system, double-clicking on a document would only open the document in Microsoft Word.

Internally, the search engine used by Vista's search boxes is a component with a defined API. The search engine registers as an implementation of that API, Vista itself uses that API to be a client of the search engine. And there's a well-defined way in the COM/DCOM system for a component to register as an implementation of an API and for the default or preferred implementation to be selected by the user (this is the same system the Set Program Access and Defaults controls use). But if I as a user install Google Desktop Search and tell the system I want to use it as the search engine, Vista will override my order and continue to use the Microsoft search engine instead. There's no technical reason to do this, in fact there's every technical reason not to, and the complaint is that Microsoft is artifically restricting it's competitors' non-OS products and favoring it's own in ways it can only do because it controls the OS those products depend on.

Re:This is fucking retarded.

[White Shade]

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?

Re:Of all the things MS has bundled w/ windows

[DNeoMatrix]

I personally wouldn't run windows if it didn't come with I.E. - seriously - without it you can't even download firefox!

are you refering to this ..

[rs232]

"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

You forgot #3

[PPH]

Where is Mr. Clippy when you need him?

Re:You forgot #3

[LMacG]

Everybody knows #3 ...

3. ???