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.
Like, say, Charles Manson?
My blog
Ok, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of MS I don't think hate is too strong a word, or at least in the context of their business practices. Any corporation that actively attempts to stifle/destroy new innovations that they don't control by use of illegal/monopolistic methods deserves nothing but contempt. They stopped being "just a software company" a long time ago.
I believe we're invoking the age-old D-The-Ends-Justify-The-Means argument, which of course means we're destined to spiral way off-topic.
So let's to it.
IMHO, the ends don't always justify the means. I lost a lot of respect for Novell, and for Xandros, when they made deals with Microsoft. I feel that, no matter what good could be gained from it, that these things upheld the philosophical underpinnings of the OSS community. Even if GPLv3 gets twisted in such a way that MS gets bent over a barrel and has to release their code, that won't be good. It will have been sneaky and underhanded, and we would be just as bad as them.
In much the same way, if Google resorts to the same power-brokering that Microsoft does, they will be doing evil. Doing evil is what makes one be evil. (Sorry for getting it wrong earlier, btw)
This could quickly become a PR nightmare for Google if they get painted in the wrong light, and for something that I see as trivial. Google is one of those companies, like Apple, where looking cool is important to their image, and their market base. Why risk it?
--"insert clever quote here"
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.
Wow, and people rip on Apple fanboys for drinking the kool-aid. Let's be clear, google is complaining that Windows ships with a feature that's trivial to disable either by a user or an installer, that given todays media sizes, it should ship with by default (or else explain why Microsoft should be permitted to supply a file manager, or even a built in text dialogue). Google is inconvienenced by this development as they ship a horrible product with truly lacking privacy protections, which *they* don't even charge for. So their remedy is to have lawyers write my OS.
Seriously, fuck google. Damn the collateral damage, examples must be made. I don't see Google opening up page rank and exposing ever aspect of their technology through their API, and they have a monopoly on web searching. I'm going down to Home Depot, I find myself short kerosene and a pitchfork.
That and keeping MSHTML.dll around is a bit different than building an OS around an application designed to compete with a smaller company.
So you're saying that Explorer.exe can't use HTML? Or that if it does the html component can only be used in Explorer? Or that Windows can include MSHTML.DLL but not Iexplorer.exe? Incidentally as far as I can tell third party applications literally embed Internet Explorer, not MSHTML.exe, which is why it's so hard to remove it. It's not like the edit control where third party applications depend on the EDIT class, not the whole of Notepad.
If Office were provided for free then Wordperfect would have had a right to bitch. Notepad is a thoroughly simplistic tool.
What about Wordpad and the RichEdit control? Is that near enough to Wordperfect's functionality that Microsoft should have been prevented from bundling it? What if they'd gradually added features until it looked like Wordperfect - should that be illegal?
And how about multimedia codecs? Should be illegal for Microsoft to specify an API for codecs? What about if they bundle a toy application that demonstrates how to use the API? What about if they include MediaPlayer which started off as a toy application and got gradually enhanced. Ironically I actually use MediaPlayer Classic which removed all the enhancements and reverts it to a toy application that just knows how to host codecs.
As far as I know in the EU Microsoft have been forced to provide a very of Windows where the MediaPlayer executable is not bundled but presumably the API is supported and Microsoft codecs are supported, because RealNetworks demanded it.
Incidentally, if anti trust law forces them to do this, is ok for them to provide Media Player as a free download? What happens if there is an icon in the start menu and it installs on demand when people try to use it? Is that ok too?. How user unfriendly do they have to make it to use the Microsoft application in your opinion?
Seems like it's not as clear cut as you think doesn't it?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The argument here isn't over whether MS should be able to bundle stuff with their OS (though unfortunately that's what some of the anti-trust stuff has focussed on) - it's whether MS should be allowed to exploit a leading position in one market (OS) to crush competition in other markets (desktop search in this instance). Of course MS should be able to bundle IE (for example) - should they be able to attempt to kill any other browser company though? Should they be allowed to attempt to kill the internet as a multi-platform endeavour (this is the end-game of Silverlight, and was the long-term purpose of IE (including IE Mac) )?
Are you familiar with the expressions "cut off the oxygen supply (of Netscape)", "a vig on every transaction (on the internet)", and "I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to kill Google"? The story of Java on Windows? BeOS? OS2? DR-DOS?
While you flippantly use the term evil to describe MS, their focus on 'winning' (where winning means dominating and owning any market entered) at all costs does lead to evil. Their flagrant and illegal abuse of the market position of Windows in the past does mean they're held to stricter standards, as it should. In my opinion MS should be allowed to build whatever they like into their products, but they should be closely scrutinised for illegal actions, like breaking rival software, bribery, breaking contracts, buying out competition in nascent markets, bullying suppliers and customers, attempting to strongarm OEM PC makers with secret contracts, attempting to crush (not beat fairly but crush) rival tech like Java, the web and Google Desktop search by breaking OS compatibility, coming out with Windows extensions to break other implementations (Java) etc etc. With all these actions, MS has set back the computing world years.
If I were you, I'd actually try to win on merits, not by manipulation and extinguishing competitors. While Microsoft employees don't even understand why people mistrust their company (which you patently don't), the attitude of those in the 'outside world', as you charmingly put it, won't change.