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

And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Eyah....TIMMY]

Oh yeah, Spotlight just from a small company out in Cupertino. Nothing to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, TFA is quoting the antitrust case and I think MSFT should open their search engine but I think we should not forget they're not the only ones out there to embed "functionality" in their OS. You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar, probably paid MS shill, since your type is the only one who loves to rewrite history and LAW like that. Read the "Sherman Antitrust Act", the "Clayton Act" and the "Tunney Act": monopolies harm the public interest and therefore Google has a role in this case. Monopolies actually are illegal per se, but case law has changed it to 'harmful monopolies are illegal' as a 'rule of reason'.

Read Judge Jackson's undisputed findings of fact to see just how anti-competitive MS is, here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm No, MS killed Netscape by destroying their revenue stream via bundling, via exclusionary contracts to ISPs and OEMs, via conspiracy to divide the market etc; they killed BeOS and DRI's Dr DOS as well. The only traditional company still alive is Apple, but only by the virtue of co-operating with MS through a deal to give them MIcrosoft Office. That's not competitino.

Any combination in restraint of trade is illegal and MS is guilty in several countries and unions of anti-competitive practices and monopoly maintenance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunney_Act

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Ravnen]

That isn't quite right. Netscape's browser was not based on Mosaic, because the licensing chosen by the University of Illinois would not grant an exclusive right to the source code to Netscape. The university's aim was to licence it to anyone who wished to use it, and this didn't fit with Netscape's plans. That's why Marc Andreessen and the other Netscape developers called their new browser 'Mozilla', meaning 'Mosaic killer'. For Internet Explorer, on the other hand, Microsoft did acquire a Mosaic licence, but apparently never used any of the Mosaic code itself.

As for how Netscape imagined it would be a viable business model to sell a browser when Mosaic was given away for free, there was apparently much debate about this early on, with some at Netscape believing the browser should be given away to drive sales of the server (which would offer unique features not supported by browsers other than Netscape's), whilst others argued the browser ought to be sold. In the end, they effectively gave it away to consumers, but charged commercial users. It wasn't a viable business model, and so it eventually collapsed, with Microsoft speeding up the process by giving away IE.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[MontyApollo]

I never heard that part before, but it is possible he just made a bad deal and/or had poor lawyers advising.

I was in a similar boat once. Years ago (when I was like 20 or 21) I created some shareware, and this software company contacted me and wanted to sell it. I signed an exclusive contract in return for royalties. They suggested I would make around $30K based on how well their other products sold. Once I signed, I never heard from them again. I think their only purpose was just to remove a potential competitor from the marketplace.

In Hollywood, they say never sign a deal for a percentage of the profits because the bookkeepers always make sure there is never a profit.

This type of behavior may be pretty common in the business world, and I suppose you have to be sure and protect yourself.

Spotlight Plug Ins

[weston]

Spotlight's not really the same thing, I don't think, but to the extent that it's similar, it's got some fairly good hooks for third-party developers and it's pretty customizable:

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/go ogleimporter.html

Does Microsoft offer something similar?

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[644bd346996]

You aren't forced to use any of the iApps. There are alternatives to all of them. You are to some extent forced to use the Finder, but there are other programs you can use as your primary file manager, and if you really resent the UI as much as you seem to, you can just use X11. Apple offers the most open platform that is still proprietary, and they don't abuse their dominance in one market to get into another market.