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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.