Slashdot Mirror
Google Calls For More Limits On Microsoft
teh_commodore writes "Scientific American is reporting that Google is now asking a Federal judge to extend the government's anti-trust oversight of Microsoft, specifically with regard to desktop search software. Microsoft had already agreed to modify Vista to allow rival desktop search engines, but Google says that this remedy will come too late — specifically, after (most of) the anti-trust agreement expires in November. What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice and US state regulators, who had found Microsoft's compromise acceptable, to appeal directly to the Federal judge overseeing the anti-trust settlement." Update: 06/26 17:20 GMT by KD : The judge is unwilling to play along with Google; she said she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the case: i.e. Justice and the states.
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
They had better. The consent decree expires in November. If that means what I think it means, Vista is going to suck life more obviously than it already does. It's like they've ignored the consent decree, even while it's in effect. Normal people are unable to think of what M$ will do next.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's "Don't be Evil." Doing evil and being evil are subjectively different IMO.
So is using your large companies power for the greater good doing (or being) evil?
I don't really think so...
Money is the root of all evil?
This is a marketing tactic. Google knows that many people will respect this move.
;-) And, no, I don't like it, either.
But it brings into focus a new corporate strategy... the use of regulation over competition. Asking for regulation is against the traditional American business philosophy, which typically favours deregulation.
This could play out in favour of Microsoft who will likely ask that Google get regulated more heavily, which will result in some interesting news for the world, to come. And yes, I know something you don't.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Looks like we have some Microsoft moderators today. It is not unreasonable for Google to go over the heads of opposing counsel and address the court directly. The only "political maneuver interesting" here is that the DOJ would choose to represent the plaintiff and the defendant in the same case. It sounds suspiciously like a conflict of interest in the Department of Justice.
I'm a little out of the loop, but I just read through the final [amended] consent decree against Microsoft on the DOJ website. Can someone in the know point out what clause Google is claiming is being violated? I haven't seen it directly mentioned in any story posted yet.
I mean, the main problems addressed in the consent decree were twofold: 1) Microsoft was illegally leveraging OEMs for positioning, and 2) Microsoft was illegally leveraging it's "Middleware" market by including standalone products (such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc) in its Windows OS.
What's Google's ground, legally, for their complaint? According to the consent decree, the term "Middleware" was defined, basically, as either "IE, Java, Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express" or "browsers, email clients, networked audio/video software, instant messaging software" or "any functionality provided by Microsoft software that is distributed separately within a year preceding a new commercial Windows release which is similar to a non-Microsoft middleware product".
That being the case, did Microsoft ever release the Instant Search option as a separate download from any Windows OS? I can't think of any time they ever did that to my recollection. In fact, as someone else pointed out, searching is not only integral to the file systems of an OS, but it's been included in Windows from quite a ways back (if not as efficiently as it currently is implemented in Vista.)
Just curious....
LondovirLondovir
Well Microsoft is the crybaby in this situation since they have been lobbying the Bush administration quite heavily. Infact the DOJ even want as far as to file a friend of the court petition on behalf of MS on this case??
Isn't it the DOJ's job to monitor MS?
Whatever. Google is just trying to survive and has a right to be worried. How can you compete with every desktop on earth? People use whats on their computers and whether its good or not it becomes standard. No one can unseat Microsoft as a result and its illegal under the sherman anti trust laws.
As it is state courts are taking up sides agaisnt MS since the federal government is very pro ms due to bribes.
http://saveie6.com/
What does any of this have to do with My Rights Online? As between Google and Microsoft, and which outfit gains a couple of points of market share as opposed to the other, I care about as much as I care about Darfur or Paris Hilton.
As a user of multiple OS's (XP, Vista and various *nix) I'm quite happy with Vista. Removed it within 24hrs for Ubuntu before factory restoring my system as I couldn't get all my new shiny hardware to work with Linux (ok, Linux fanboys... I could have tried harder but I was in my last month of University and needed a system that worked now. First time Linux has let me down though).
;-) ). Why are Microsoft getting slapped for improving part of their product and improving its prominence in line with user demand? If market research didn't show users wanted a search feature, MS wouldn't have implemented it and Google wouldn't care.
/. so any pro/non-anti MS posts are against the law so, let the flames commence...
This gave me the opportunity to give Vista a try out before a reinstall of Linux, which now isn't going to happen without some changes (more targetted exploits for example). Only mistake I think MS made with Vista was to allow the new security features (UAC etc.) to be turned off by the user (leaving the 'pretty XP' arguement people keep making), although I've got to ask: wtf is up with the 'show text' option for password fields? sheer madness....
With regard to search, unless I'm mistaken Windows has had a search feature since forever (win3.1 I think, possibly earlier I'm not that old
In regards to the fairness arguement, why should MS have to give fair access to THEIR software to a competitor?
Now I know this is