Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
The difference is that the 'small' company in Cupertino, CA, is not a convicted monopolist. The court in question ruled that Microsoft created and abused an illegal monopoly in the computer operating system business. In fact, by embedding Internet Explorer into Windows, they effectively killed Netscape. That's why they are barred from embedding the functionality of other software markets into their OS and Apple most definitely is not. Google is just saying that this behavior is identical to its previous behavior and that they should also be barred from doing it.
My blog
doesn't the judge read slashdot?
doesn't he know that
microsoft are the evil empire!
and
google does no evil!
The major difference is that this is part of an agreement that MS has with the feds. There's nothing illegal about bundling multiple types of software together, other companies do it all the time. The issue is that this is against the above mentioned settlement. MS was convicted of holding a monopoly, and as such is subject to a different set of rules than the rest of the world. When the anti-trust settlement expires, then they are free to do business just like everyone else. (At least short of returning to their old way of doing things.)
I am not a fan of microsoft-- in fact i refuse to use windows or give my money to microsoft in any way-- but i think that they should have the right to include whatever they want in *their* OS as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor. For example-- back in the day microsoft shipped a microsoft branded java virtual machine that implemented things just a tad differently. People started programming for microsoft's JVM instead of Sun's JVM, effectively attempting to steal the java market from Sun.
I'm going to offer a tangent given that many /.'s misunderstand Google. Google is not really a "search" company, they are a targeted advertising company. Searches are just a means to build profiles on us, as is gmail. Microsoft and Google are fighting over who gets to profile us and collect the targeted advertising revenue streams. Basically who will websites pay to find out which ad banners to show us.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
And what's wrong with that? It's their damn product. Of COURSE they're going to try to promote it above all else. Do you not do this with your products? Or if you aren't self-employed, does your company not do this? If you don't like it, you're free to use a competitor's product.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
Just like everything Linus and the linux kernel team does is to promote and protect the linux kernel.
And everything Steve-o and Apple does is to promote and protect its apple iShinyThing.
And everything Google does is to take your personal information and sell it to the lowest bidder.
"The judge has declined Google's assistance."
Google's not interested in assisting anything. Like the other companies involved in the MS antitrust case, they simply want the court to help them compete.
First, Google offers a version of Google desktop on OS X that uses the same APIs that Spotlight does. They don't use the same API's as Vistas search because not all of them are public and MS does not provide an easy way for them to stop the built in search function, so the user ends up running both with a performance penalty.
Second, there is normally nothing illegal about bundling two products in existing separate markets. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market into an existing, separate market. The classic way to do this is by bundling a product from the monopolized market with one from the other market. That is illegal. Note, Apple does not have monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and MS does. If Apple were to bundle their searching with a product where they do have monopoly influence (they are close with the iPod) it would be illegal for them as well. Do you see the difference?
You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows.Yes it is, both legally and technically.
Not true - Microsoft was convicted of having an illegal monopoly on desktop x86 operating systems. The court realized that microsoft had anything but a monopoly on server operating systems, and crafted it such that apple's marketshare was ignored.
I continue to be amazed at the posts that continue to be modded up when anything about MS and monopolies gets posted.
a viours
After all the posts that have been made on this board about monopolies, you'd think people would learn and stop begging the question over and over and over.
Look, if you are severely mentally handicapped with regards to monopolies, then read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_beh
If this doesn't help, don't utter another word until you sit down with an Economics professor. Just find one and take him or her out to lunch and ask them to explain Monopolies (make sure you can find one that doesn't talk like Alan Greenspan) and how Monopolies stifle competition and how true capitalism is based on competition, not privatization.
If this doesn't help, you are obviously a plant by Microsoft to continually influence other slashdotters into thinking that what is being done to MS is wrong, or have been duly influenced by said plant.
I swear I'm going to shoot the next person who posts something like this in the head. It's wrong, dead wrong. You may argue that Mr South Park in a wheelchair here might be too new, but he has posts going back quite some time, and he's had to have seen one other article about this.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
In this case, instead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering. Similarly, Vista's security lets Microsoft's inferior antivirus run properly, but interferes with the operation of other AV products. Tell me how you, as a consumer, benefit from that.
http://www.mhall119.com
microsoft's desktop search is better than google's.
un burrito me trampeó.
To take another example, Apple is arguably a dominant firm in music players, which may limit its ability to discriminate in negotiations with, for example, media firms publishing music on iTunes. Apple management can't know whether or not the iPod is a dominant product or monopoly in legal terms until a judicial ruling, after the fact. Should they focus on maximising shareholder wealth by securing the best deals with media firms, or should they treat all such firms equally, to avoid future prosecution for abusing a dominant position/legal monopoly?
The view that judges ought to decide whether or not a given feature can be included in a particular software product, or represents a different market, is not particularly appealing, either from a technical or an economic perspective.
On the broader point, I suspect most people who bring this up know the difference, and are simply using a rhetorical device to express their disapproval of laws that treat dominant firms differently to non-dominant ones.
The difference is that the 'small' company in Cupertino, CA, is not a convicted monopolist.
This is the stupidest argument that people make, and I'm sick of hearing it. Don't trot out the "Big Brother says it's wrong, so it's wrong" argument unless you're also willing to get behind the Patriot Act, the DMCA, harsh drug laws, and every other stupid, moronic law and court case that our broken government spits out.
I don't respond to AC's.
Exactly.
And the fact that Microsoft has continued to be allowed to bundle a web browser should be evidence enough of that. But too many slashdotters are living in a world of make-believe and/or groklaw.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Google's desktop search sucks. They're never wanted a GUI integrated search anyways, so what are they complaining about? Google's Desktop search is like their online search! It runs in a WEB UI. It does not need gui access, they never needed gui intergration before, so why are they crying?