Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case

Rob writes "Computer Business Review magazine is reporting that Google has filed papers with the US district judge overseeing Microsoft's compliance with its 2002 antitrust settlement, outlining why it believes it has a special interest in helping to ensure Microsoft remains in compliance. The judge has declined Google's assistance. From the article: 'Google had complained that the search engine built into Vista constituted "middleware" under the terms of the antitrust settlement and that Microsoft was therefore extending its desktop monopoly into a new market. While Microsoft insisted Google's complaint is "without merit" it did agree in late June to make a number of changes to its Vista search engine with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 to give rival desktop search software, including Google Desktop, a more level playing field.'"

Comments

Re:sorry we'll refix it after a few months. promis

[Locutus]

I guess you're too young to know what's going on. I'll keep it short, Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop computer operating systems. Not bad in itself and really what businesses strive for. Now the good part, Microsoft has used that monopoly to block competitors and protect their monopoly product(s). This is legal thing and comes into effect once a company gains monopoly status in a market. Now the really bad part, over the last 15+ years, Microsoft has used anti-competitive practices outside the laws of anti-trust( monopoly stuff ) and went to court with the federal government twice on this. The first time they settled before conviction an agreed to a few things that really didn't stop doing. The second time, they ended up with the same judge who was put in to replace the first judge( first time around ) and he'd been told to settle the original case so he was quite aware of how Microsoft worked and what they were SUPPOSED to do/operate. Well he threw the book at them the second time and all kinds of fun facts made it to the public along with Microsoft losing the case and getting convicted of anti-competitive actions in computer desktop operating systems. They were supposed to be split into 3 or more smaller companies but Bush and his corrupt gang of thieves took over and threw that judge out and put in an ignorant and naive judge who basically told Microsoft to be good and don't do that again.

So, what's "WRONG with that" is that Microsoft is a convicted felon, convicted of using anti-competitive practices to thwart competition, they've done it far more times than they've been in court for it and they are continuing to do the same. If they did not have a monopoly position it would not be an issue. If they were a monopoly AND didn't have a history of constantly using anti-competitive business practices it would not be AS big a deal. But they are, they do and they keep on doing this. As a consumer and/or a person trying to make a buck providing the best product on the market for your customers, you should be bleeping made that this is continueing year after year after year. But if you make money fixing Microsoft software or any of the other many wasteful businesses built on supporting Microsoft Windows, you'll have a very different view.

They should be teaching this stuff in school since there are just soo many how have no clue as to how and why Microsoft is what it is and how it keeps doing this to prevent products from getting to consumers. IMO.

LoB