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?

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[hitmanWilly1337]

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.)

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'm going to take a different angle on your question and compare against Google ...

Apple's Spotlight is different than Google's searches (and gmail as well) in that it is not used to build a profile about your interests so that various websites can deliver targeted advertsising. Keep in mind that Google is fighting over who will be able to profile you and sell that information to advertisers in an indirect way.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[ProppaT]

Exactly. This holds no grounds in court as far as I can see because Microsoft HAS to offer new features to stay competitive with OSX. Sure, if Microsoft offered a full featured, non integrated cd-burning software with their OS, Roxio and Ahead would have a case against Microsoft. A search function is vital to everyday computing and is a built in function. I don't think Google has much to worry about. Desktop integrates absolutely perfectly with my gmail, so I'll continue to use it.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[ZeroConcept]

Apple is not a convicted monopoly, there is a difference.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[TheRaven64]

This seems to be brought up often enough with Microsoft antitrust articles that I can't help wondering if someone who doesn't get the difference yet is a paid Microsoft shill. Bundling two pieces of software together is not illegal. Bundling software with an operating system is not illegal. Bundling a search API and application with an operating system is not illegal. Using a monopoly in one market to attempt to gain one in another market is illegal.

Apple do not have anything like a monopoly in the operating systems market. Thus, they can't use their monopoly in this area to get a monopoly in another area. They could be considered to have a (legal) monopoly in the portable digital music player market, and so a complaint that they were trying to use this to gain a monopoly in the music download market (via FairPlay) would have some merit, and this is why they are being prosecuted in Europe. Part of the process of prosecuting this suit is going to be attempting to prove that Apple do have a legal monopoly in this market (i.e. they are able to act as if they had a true monopoly).

Microsoft has a legal monopoly in the operating systems market. One of the outcomes of the DoJ Vs Microsoft case was establishing this as a legal fact. They are not legally allowed to use this to gain a monopoly in other areas. Anything they bundle with Windows comes under scrutiny. If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.

Finally, under the terms of their settlement, they have to disclose all APIs to their competitors. This means that Google's Desktop Search has to be able to use all of the hooks into the kernel and low level subsystems that Microsoft's tool uses.

(IANAL, any lawyers who want to chime in, feel free to correct any of this)

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?

[MontyApollo]

I never understood the whole Netscape thing. The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free, then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.

I understood the concern about MS forcing vendors to bundle Office if they wanted a good deal on Windows and all that, but the Netscape issue always was the one that made the news. I think a lot of average people tended to side with MS because that is all they heard about.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[larkost]

A little more detail in this case would help illuminate why the guy was so angry. He made an agreement with Microsoft that in return for him licensing Spyglass Mosaic to them to be transformed into Internet Explorer that they would give him a fee and then a percentage of the profits. THey then bundle it with the OS and thus argued that they did not owe him any profits. It was a very dishonest thing for Microsoft to do, and they eventually settled for a relative pittance (after burying the guy's lawyers in court under a mountain of procedural work).

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[MontyApollo]

>>If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.

I think search is an intrinsic part of the operating system, and I don't think even Google thinks it should be a separate product. Because of the previous settlement, Google is claiming they should be given easier access to replacing components of the operating system.

I don't know enough about it, but a fair number of people seem to think that Google is being a crybaby about this, while others think Google is just laying the groundwork for some secret strategy on their part.

I do know that I hated it when AOL and Norton decided to replace parts of the OS with their own components, and I refused to fix friends' computers that had these installed. I think this was part of MS's original mindset, but now I think they are trying to figure out what Google is up to.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Genevish]

1. You're splitting hairs. You know as well as I do that the poster meant Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly power.
2. The MS search was not easy to turn off, which is why Microsoft agreed to make changes. And Google is now complaining that Microsoft is turning off the search feature completely, to prevent competitors from being able to provide their own search capability.

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?

[mhall119]

You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows. Actually that is different from Windows, and the heart of Google's complaint. You can't stop Microsoft's indexer from running or remove Microsoft's Desktop Search from Windows Explorer.

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[notaprguy]

Quick reality check for you dude. I know reality hurts but... Microsoft is NOT barred from "embedding the functionality of other software markets into their OS..." They are barred from integrating trademarked functionality/features defined as "middleware" according to the court definition that prevents third parties from offering the same functionality with equal visibility. The court did not rule that they cannot bundle this middleware into their OS. They are just required to make it possible for similar functionality offered by other companies to compete.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Ravnen]

That's not true. Microsoft's old searching software might not have been very capable, but it's been around since 1996, and in 2003 Microsoft demonstrated the replacement for it (based at the time on WinFS) that finally shipped with Vista. This demonstration predated both Google Desktop Search and Apple Spotlight.

Microsoft can be faulted for taking an inordinately long time to get their solution to the market, but they've been trying to do it since the mid-1990s, and if there was any copying going on, Google and Apple arguably copied the idea from Microsoft, and not the other way round.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Eric Damron]

Netscape would not have died if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft illegally imbedded its own browser into its monopoly OS. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Zak3056]

My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all! There has been a search feature in every version of windows since at least 95 (I don't remember about 3.1.)

Desktop search was also an announced feature of Vista before Google announced Google Desktop Search, so it seems disingenuous for them to claim to MS is somehow trying to muscle them. On the other hand, there were plenty of features announced for Vista that never showed up. :)

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Ravnen]

If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.

This is one of the most important reasons why many, including Alan Greenspan, object to these laws: insofar as the question of whether or not desktop search is a separate market from operating systems is a legal rather than a technical one, there is no way for Microsoft to know whether or not including this functionality in the OS is illegal until a judicial ruling, after the fact.

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[DogDude]

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[soulhuntre]

But we all KNOW that the courts are always compleetely capble of making correct, informed decisions about technology matters. I mean, if there is one thing Slashdot stands for it's the absolute ability of the US legal system to tell us how the technology sector shoudl work.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[KingMotley]

Monopolies are not illegal. Taken from your own sources

any company that "got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could" would not be in violation of the act

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Ravnen]

You can't stop Microsoft's indexer from running

Nonsense, of course you can stop it. The 'Windows Search' service is simply one of many non-essential Windows services, and can be stopped or disabled by any user with administrative privileges. If that is the heart of Google's complaint, then they're either dishonest or incompetent.

or remove Microsoft's Desktop Search from Windows Explorer.

Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complaining now.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[jrumney]

If you are going to sign an exclusive contract, make sure there is a minimum sales clause that lets you terminate the exclusivity if they are not performing. I guess you learnt that the hard way.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[BlackSnake112]

One could argue that the windows search is an updated find. Remember find?

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[BlackSnake112]

The service is called Windows Search. Stop it, disable it. Windows indexer no longer runs. As for uninstalling it, I am still looking for the 'correct' way to do that. Deleting the reg key would remove it, but I am not sure that is the correct way. But you can stop the windows search from running. There is nothing microsoft can do to stop people from doing that. Maybe google's install should stop and disable that one service?

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Microsoft's monopoly is not illegal. Using their monopoly to gain an advantage in different industries/fields/whatever is illegal. So Microsoft is free to use their OS monopoly to progate itself, but not to force you to buy Microsoft Money and destroy Quicken.

That said, this seems like a legitimite OS feature, as opposed to, say HTML rendering or spreadsheet manipulation.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all!

Okay, time for some perspective. Assuming you can agree to the basic principal that leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain in another needs to be illegal because it breaks the free market, how do you go about defining things in legal terms? Well, obviously some things have to be bundled to be useful. So you look at markets, after all that is what economists and judges are concerned about. MS allowed a market for indexed search to appear before they implemented it themselves. People paid for software to perform such searches with money, with personal data that was sellable, and by looking at ads. Once that has happened, it is a separate market and MS needs to enter it on a level playing field. Otherwise, they discourage innovation and retard progress i markets that people thing they might enter.

There has been a search feature in every version of windows since at least 95 (I don't remember about 3.1.)

Sure there has, but that is searching by filename, not searching inside the contents of various kinds of file formats and extracting matching words.

Desktop search was also an announced feature of Vista before Google announced Google Desktop Search, so it seems disingenuous for them to claim to MS is somehow trying to muscle them.

It doesn't matter when you announce something. For all we know Google has had this project in the works since the day the company was founded. All that matters from a legal perspective, and sensibly from the perspective of enforcement, is what the state of the market is when MS brought it to market. After all, if MS is confident theirs is better, why not give consumers a choice on startup between MS's search and Google's and let the best algorithm win. That is fair and it results in better products for everyone.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

i think the point is that its very difficult, in the real world, to have *all* of the business in a particular market on those grounds. Point in case, M$ isnt in legal problems for having the largest share of the OS market, because they obviously dont. They are not a monopoly in any sense. They had antitrust problems because they were leveraging their majority share in an anticompetitive fashion. the whole "convicted monopolist" rhetoric is fucking meaningless, but i doubt that there exist many if any non-governmentally-granted monopolies in the country that conform to the principle you cite from grandparents source. If you've got a monopoly on something, you either A. own IP on the central technology in the market, B. have been granted a legal monopoly on the market by the govt (private utilities and the like) or, C. have engaged in as-yet undiscovered shenannigans of an anticompetitive nature.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Zak3056]

Sure there has, but that is searching by filename, not searching inside the contents of various kinds of file formats and extracting matching words.

Content searching has been around since at least Windows 2000. The big change in Vista is 1) the indexer (so your searches are fast, instead of having to wait for the disk to be scanned) and 2) search is pervasive (it indexes anything it can get its grubby little hands on, including the contents of databases (like access MDBs, or Outlook PSTs), exchange message stores, etc.)

It doesn't matter when you announce something. For all we know Google has had this project in the works since the day the company was founded. All that matters from a legal perspective, and sensibly from the perspective of enforcement, is what the state of the market is when MS brought it to market.

I can agree that MS has to play by at least slightly different rules given their OS monopoly position, but I think this pushes things WAY too far in the other direction. Using the theory above, a competitor (or anyone who feels like playing spoiler) can wait for MS to announce new OS features, and then implement them (poorly or otherwise) as a standalone product, forcing MS to make significant changes in the name of "fairness." Talk about unfair competition!

After all, if MS is confident theirs is better, why not give consumers a choice on startup between MS's search and Google's and let the best algorithm win. That is fair and it results in better products for everyone

I agree with this in theory (it's one of the reasons I love FOSS--while multiple efforts targeted at the same goal might not be very efficient, it has produced some wonderful results over the last quarter century plus) but my feeling is that this should ultimately be Microsoft's decision (or at least the market's decision) instead of that of a judge.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

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.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[larry bagina]

IE uses/used mosaic code, especially in early releases. A few years ago, they removed gopher support due to a vulnerability that also existed in the original mosaic code.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[MontyApollo]

>>I guess you learnt that the hard way.

Yep. It was kind of a bummer because I thought I might get some easy money.

In reality it wasn't really that big of a deal. The program was just some project I did to teach myself C++, and I thought I would try to sell some shareware copies and maybe make some beer money. It wasn't anything special, but I was selling it real cheap and that was probably what they wanted to stop. It was a weird sensation though when the president of the company goes from blowing smoke up your ass one day to never returning your calls the next. I would periodically check the computer stores for about a year later, but I only ever saw one title from that company and it was something else entirely. They probably wouldn't have sold many copies even if they tried.

Allways talk to a lawyer, AND talk to one that knows what's going on.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[Ravnen]

According to this link, Spyglass Mosaic, which was licensed by Microsoft, didn't include any code from NCSA Mosaic. Assuming that's correct, Microsoft didn't use any NCSA Mosaic code, but did use Spyglass Mosaic code, so I suppose it's a matter of the interpretation of 'Mosaic code'. I had in mind the NCSA Mosaic code in my original post.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[rtb61]

Not to be too picky, but I would hardly call a hard disk searching utility middleware. M$ truly sucks sometimes but google's privacy invasive is truly up there with the windrones.

Perhaps at a stretch you might call software that analyses the contents of files, a users file search patterns, or software that creates a consumer profile of a person based upon the personal contents of the hard disk drive (and distributes it over the internet), might be called marketing middle ware but it is also pretty sucky software.

So a question might be is whether M$ HDisk search utlity is doing this, and is marketing middle ware or is M$ HDisk just an OS utlity extension that provides HDisk search services only.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[mhall119]

The service is called Windows Search. Stop it, disable it. Windows indexer no longer runs. Which would be ideal if it didn't disable all the search functionality within Vista. If Google's search (or Yahoo, or whichever) could replace Windows Search in Vista, then stopping the service would be all that needs to be done. But imagine if you had to disable the file search functions of Windows XP just to make Google Desktop Search run right, who would install it then?

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[mhall119]

Nonsense, of course you can stop it. The 'Windows Search' service is simply one of many non-essential Windows services, and can be stopped or disabled by any user with administrative privileges. If that is the heart of Google's complaint, then they're either dishonest or incompetent. Let me clarify, you can't stop Windows Search service without compromising the functionality of the Vista desktop. This is no different than IE, which could be removed, but then nothing would work right. Disabling Windows Search also disables all of Vista's search boxes, so nobody is actually going to do it.

Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complaining now. Windows 95 search functions didn't have adverse technical effects on Google's product offerings, Windows Search does.

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Content searching has been around since at least Windows 2000.

How long a technology has been around is not the issue. If I performa search on my Windows XP box I do not find keywords that are not in the filename. There may be a way to do it, but if so I've never seen it.

Using the theory above, a competitor (or anyone who feels like playing spoiler) can wait for MS to announce new OS features, and then implement them (poorly or otherwise) as a standalone product, forcing MS to make significant changes in the name of "fairness." Talk about unfair competition!

First, a competitor need not only release the product, they have to have people legitimately purchasing it (that is to say no kickbacks). No sales means no existing market. Second, if MS is really worried about that happening, well they can just start providing new features modularly so that anyone can plug in replacements. That is good for the industry anyway.

...but my feeling is that this should ultimately be Microsoft's decision (or at least the market's decision) instead of that of a judge.

Do you understand how monopolies affect markets? Bundling with a monopoly means there is no free market and people can make the right business decision and the end result is still the less innovative and more expensive product winning. As for letting Microsoft decide, there is a system of economics where we rely not upon greed to motivate innovation and low prices, but instead rely upon altruism and businessmen doing the "right thing." It is called "extreme socialism," and it doesn't work so well.

Capitalism works because it relies upon greed and self interest, but places those qualities in competition with other people's greed and self interest in such a way that innovation is rewarded with cash. Businesses get cash and the people get innovation. Letting any one business bypass that system and just decide on their own if they feel like innovating in a market or if they'd rather just take over without innovating and make money regardless, returns very poor results. We're probably a decade or more behind where we could be in the desktop OS and Web/Internet technologies because MS's monopoly has dominated them. MS has no reason to release a browser that is more capable and can handle modern standards, so they don't and we all suffer. Letting them do the same thing to dozens of other markets is unacceptable.

Personally...

[lessermilton]

@~:locate myfile.txt

Works just fine for me ^_^

Poetic Justice

[osewa77]

The future Microsoft wants to bury the current Microsoft. Hmm, that's just about right. The universe is pleased.

Re:I don't understand this crap at all

[wizardforce]

kind of like IE?

judge

[wwmedia]

doesn't the judge read slashdot?

doesn't he know that

microsoft are the evil empire!
and
google does no evil!

Re:judge

[jmashaw]

google does no evil! Don't you mean this: Google does no evil!

Abusing their image

[suv4x4]

You can tell a bunch of kids "we're good guys" and if your logo is colorful enough, they'll trust you.

But fooling the people in the legal system is a bit more involved than that. I don't like Google trying to mess around where it has no business.

sorry we'll refix it after a few months. promise

[Locutus]

funny how Microsoft can constantly damage competitors products, say their are sorry, and then take close to a year before the actual fix is pushed out. It reminds me of something I saw years ago. You know how Microsoft hates Java and all it means, well developers love it and Microsoft was refusing to make an JDBC interface to their MS SQL Server database. There were 3rd parties doing it and even an open source version IIRC, and finally Microsoft was pressured by customers to build a JDBC driver for their database. The only problem, they stated it would be released to beta in something like 8 months and release a few months later. I think it took over 12 months before it was actually released.

So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.

LoB

pansies

[superwiz]

I used to have respect for them. Their attitude towards MS seemed to be "bring it on!" I guess Steve Jobs is the only who is still willing to take on the giant in the market place without the government help. It does seem that those who win legal cases against MS lose to them in the market place soon after. I am not really saying that there is a causality there -- just a correlation. Even Apple took its biggest market share hit right after their we-invented-windows law suit (although Apple lost that one). Anyway, I just wanted to say, it's time for Sergei to start throwing some chair instead whining to the government.

anti-competitive Vs features!

[SolusSD]

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.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[kazade84]

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.

This is exactly what they are doing. The problem is not that they are including a desktop search (of course they're allowed to provide a way to search files) It's that it can't be replaced or switched off . Google Desktop can be installed alongside Windows Desktop Search but it means both will be indexing, so the computer will slow down and the user will blame Google desktop. I could be wrong because I don't have Vista, but from the stuff I've read that is the real problem.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[mhall119]

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. Google's complaint is that Microsoft's desktop indexer cannot be stopped, so running Google's indexer in parallel causes a significant performance decrease (read: crippling other companies product). Also, Microsoft's search is the only one available within windows explorer, directing internet search traffic to Microsoft's Live Search, instead of allowing people to use Google or Yahoo (read: using anti-competitive practives to steal the market from a competitor). It's only slightly more subtle than having IE redirect http://www.google.com/ to http://www.live.com/

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[h2_plus_O]

What's interesting here is that Windows has had a search feature since Win95 days. It was never "anticompetitive" according to Google until now. Of course, it was never better than what Google has to offer until now, either.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[mhall119]

Just because they both have "search" in their name, doesn't mean they're the same product. Window's desktop search is to Win95 file search what Google internet search is to IE bookmark search.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[KarmaMB84]

It can be switched off. Google is just trying to eliminate competition from Microsoft.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[BlackSnake112]

It does have a service, stop and disable the service. Microsoft says it cannot be turned off. If the service is off, then it can't run. That looks like off to me.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[Mundocani]

How so? I don't see content searching as a huge leap over searching purely by file name.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[mhall119]

Then you've never used content searching. With content searching (at least with Beagle) I can search not only file names, but the content of multiple file types, emails, web history, bookmarks, Photos, Music, Videos, IM sessions, etc.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[Mundocani]

You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change.

P.S. "then you've never used content searching" is such a lame way to bolster your argument. I wouldn't expect anyone to use such a self-serving but meaningless conclusion as a basis for an argument after leaving high school.

Re:anti-competitive Vs features!

[mhall119]

You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change. If you use desktop search only as an enhanced file search, then it's no surprise that you don't consider it much different. In that sense, you *haven't* really used it in any meaningful sense.

Desktop searches more than just files, and even more than just the content of files. Traditional file search involves reading the file system table. Desktop search involves profiling the contents of files, emails, browser activity and IM sessions plus meta data in media files like Jpeg and MP3. All of this information is cataloged and indexed, usually in a database, for faster searching. Microsoft may have had a small subset of this functionality before, but that doesn't mean they had desktop search before. You may not see the use of it, but after using Beagle for a few months, its one of the things I miss the most when I have to use Windows.

Google's motivation: targeted advertising ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

But if they go to court ...

[A non-mouse Coward]

... then Bill Gates will have to admit they're competitors!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No shit, sherlock

[everphilski]

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.

Re:No shit, sherlock

[TheRaven64]

And everything Google does is to take your personal information and sell it to the lowest bidder.

I find that hard to believe. Selling it to the highest bidder seems like it makes much better financial sense...

Re:No shit, sherlock

[everphilski]

twas a typo, but the highest bidder is probably the 'lowest' in the sense of having the least scruples ... willing to do nastier stuff with your information to recover their 'investment'.

Re:No shit, sherlock

[Locutus]

there's a big difference between a company which does this all legally and one which has so much cash that they can do almost over the legal lines and pay cheap fines if need be or just promise to step back over the line after they've had enough time to harm the intended competitor.

I know people who feel that business are supposed to fine holes in laws and do whatever they can to make a buck when they realize and expoit those holes. It is a moronic way to do business and it harms society as a whole but they have no interest in society other than to make as much money as they can so they can push "society" out of their way.

It's unfortunate, but this is exactly why some have to resort to governmental/legal options to protect THEIR business, customers, and investors. Most can't even afford to do that and are just pushed out of business. Microsoft plays the business game like they are David Carradine in "Death Race 2000" and they'll take the easy points when every they can, but every now and then, they'll pull out all stops just to get one particular 20 pointer. IMO.

LoB

Re:No shit, sherlock

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And everything Google does is to take your personal information and sell it to every bidder.

Fixed that for you.

off the cuff

[ShorePiper82]

call this what you will but it seems like Google's executive board / share holders are going for the throat. Are we beginning to see a trend or is this a wolf in sheep's clothing situation?

Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

How come is it that ever Microsoft's competitor software breaks when they bring out an upgrade or new OS. This has been happening since Lotus 1-2-3. This time its a Google DLL that craps out as the internet is starting up on Vista, yet its cleanup utilities somehow keep missing the fix. Its very visible and very annoying. Typical Microsoft Cripple your competitors software, cuz we are the only game in town stuff. I got to watch this everyday, another satisfied customer :(

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

Wise up, i have been doing this for 25 years. Notice the Lotus 1-2-3 time frame.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

I am not looking for street cred(it). Having worked with version control on 4 different OS's (counting linux/*nix as one), Version Control is not an excuse for putting out software that breaks other peoples code because it is hard to do - lol. I recall Microsofts history of version control doing this on several occasions. I guess you never heard of Mr Bill's stratage of "Embrace and Enhance". Translation for the uninitated - embrace someone elses idea and modify it so the orginal work is unsuable. The only real example I have found otherwise was a Microsft product back in the late 80's call Xenix in which the archetecure allowed it to be upgraded to y2k plus standards, of course it was killed, I beleive in the early 90's.

What ever you think, I still get to look at the Google DLL error on Vista startup everyday, and the BixFix (bloatware) aint fixed it yet, nore has the Microsoft patches on Vista. I just have don't blame Google for it since it works on other Microsft OS's. But hey, version control is HAAAARd !!!

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

| I work on the Windows team at MS and my team's role is to test Applications Compatibility, so I'm posting AC here. |

I respect your position in acknowledging you work for Microsoft, however if you are on the up and up, I am not sure why you are posting anonymous unless under duress.

| Their old toolbar broke on Vista because it was referencing an API that was neither documented, supported, nor guaranteed to exist in later versions.|

This is an old argument. You control the documentation, support, and guarantees. Microsoft controls the DLL environment not Google. Please don't blame the people who use the environment, they are after all users. We are talking about browser DLL's in your prioritary software. I real don't care about how you code your API as a user I need to know what they do and how to use them effectively, not to mention I also need to be confident they will be around for more than a couple patches, this extends to all software developers.

| This was discovered early in the beta process and was fixed in Google's next version- I'm not sure whether one of our engagement folks worked with them on it or if they spotted it themselves.|

Obviously Not, too bad for a major competitor.

|This is always regrettable, but it's often necessary.|

Yes always regrettable, how unfortunate.

|When we change Windows, it sometimes breaks apps- including Microsoft apps, which *also* do stuff that makes us pull our hair out, and which they have to fix.|

Well don't worry I understand the folks in Canada are hairy maybe their R&D can figure it out. In other words this doesn't fly. (Sorry you all are moving OPS to Canada, nothing against the "Kunnucks".)

| We do our best to give guidance [microsoft.com] on how to make your apps work well version to version, but it's a big job getting guidance to everyone and sometimes it takes some time to get it right.|

That your job, you work for the worlds largest software company you have the resources to fix the problems.

|Any suggestion that we go breaking competitors' apps on purpose is plain wrong- we go out of our way to preserve functionality, sometimes even functionality that isn't guaranteed or documented- but we won't do that if it means foregoing a security improvement, or giving up a fundamental architectural improvement.|

Hmmm, maybe not, but it does effect your allocation of resources and priorities(Welcome the the IT Industry, nothing new here again). I quit giving you folks advice in the early 90's, because the little developers were ignored. No reason to start now. Others are listening now. (BTW security is another issue all together, a topic worth of its own discussion)

|Maybe the top thing that gives Windows its value to consumers is that their apps will work from one version to the next.|

Backward compatibility... Hmmm, IBM use to be good about that, but they became the first to drop support on a problem product or heavy competition. Hope the 64 bit architecture treats you all well in the future, just like the 16 bit architecture did. But I am not so sure with the amount of competition and the costs.

|I'd call legal and report it myself if I ever thought we took a change specifically to break the competition.|

Sorry, they have been called before and settled out of court and sealed the court documents. That's the benefits to being, well Microsoft.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[Actually, I do RTFA]

What? Since when is Microsoft supposed to guarantee apps work OS to OS. OSX killed OS9 apps... in fact Microsoft typically has better support for dropping an old binary on a new version than any other OS (in major version cycles).

And as for undocumented APIs, use them at your own risk.

The only legal problem is if Microsoft's internal development team gets better documentation/advance notice of the "undocumented" API.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

|Version control has nothing to do with software versioning.|

This is two sides of the coin my boy(see oldtimer jokes), if it aint important just throw it out the window and let the code rip. LoL

|Software versioning is the process of releasing new versions of software while attempting to maintain syntactic and semantic compatibility.|

Textbook Answer, depending on which textbook you use on which platform. See the problem yet?

|In almost all cases, versioning software without breaking changes is pretty much impossible - software contains bugs, and fixing bugs is by definition requires a change in the semantics of a program.|

Note to self: Tools you wrote back in the late 1980's don't work no more. Tools you converted in the 1990's don't work no more. I got to find the semantics of the program to get them work in 2000's.

|Some software relies on bugs.|

Try not to do this... (Bad Idea!!!)

|Some software relies on unpublished behavior.|

Try not to do this... (Bad Idea, unless you are OLD School Hacker/[Engineer])

|Some software relies on very specific timing or patterns of callbacks.

Woot, Be a game programer, network program, or hmmm... well machine level coder(a step above actually)|

|Some software relies on broken security models - like that of Windows XP.|

Wow only Windows XP? I think you forgot a few... (keep going all the way back to DOS 3.3 if you like)

|Versioning software and maintaining 100% compatiblity is difficult even when your software only has a limited amount of client code - it's impossible for software like Windows which has numerous clients and numerous issues (bugs, security problems, legacy code...).|

No its not see the Unix model, see the IBM Mainframe Model. FREEZE the Environment. Hell I can get Xenix System written in the late 1980 to run on a current Linux kernel.

|That's why Microsoft runs extensive beta programs and certification programs before they officially release new versions.|

I thought it was for the free testing they got, well I am shocked.

|Google had the chance to find out that their software was going to be broken well before Vista was officially released.|

Yes I am sure that's why it is broken. It's there fault (finger points that way and that way... old joke)

|The fact that it was broken meant that someone at Google chose not to spend time on supporting Vista like many other vendors.|

Bad Google, you didn't spend enough time helping Microsoft witting write their new OS, or did I miss something.

|Like I said in my first post - you need to learn about software versioning before you talk about it.|

Yea you explained it to me. Now I know thank you. My Google DLL is still broke when I start Vista.

|I don't care how many years you think you've been doing this - I know plenty of old timers who don't have a clue.|

Hand me my buggy whip, before I beat the clue out of this genius.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

|What? Since when is Microsoft supposed to guarantee apps work OS to OS. OSX killed OS9 apps... in fact Microsoft typically has better support for dropping an old binary on a new version than any other OS (in major version cycles).|

Hey guarantee are hard to come by, but every so often you expect one of Microsoft's competitors (Lotus, netscap, google...Pick your favorite Application failure) to get lucky. Its Dejavu all over again.

|And as for undocumented APIs, use them at your own risk.|

Which ones? (Old joke catch 22 stuff). How much risk does Microsoft assume btw on the documented ones anyway?

|The only legal problem is if Microsoft's internal development team gets better documentation/advance notice of the "undocumented" API.|

Ok, I blame Microsoft's Internal Development Team's documentation. Hmmm, But when I read their public documentation it aint that hot either (IMHO). It might lose something in translation, maybe the "Kunnucks" (god bless them) can help them out some. I can read canadian. :)

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Ok, I blame Microsoft's Internal Development Team's documentation. Hmmm, But when I read their public documentation it aint that hot either (IMHO). It might lose something in translation, maybe the "Kunnucks" (god bless them) can help them out some. I can read canadian. :)

But apparently not English. The only problem is if Microsoft uses its knowledge of undocumented APIs to gain an advantage on Google. If the documentation is piss-poor (and it is, I've had to rewrite parts so that it was usable), that doesn't matter. It only matters if their internal developers get a better version.

P.S. very clever of you to once more reference Microsoft's opening of an R+D center in Canada because of laxer immigration requirements. I'm sure you see it as a condemnation of Microsoft and not a horribly broken immigration system in the United States.

IANAL, some disclaimer, etc.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

|But apparently not English. The only problem is if Microsoft uses its knowledge of undocumented APIs to gain an advantage on Google. If the documentation is piss-poor (and it is, I've had to rewrite parts so that it was usable), that doesn't matter. It only matters if their internal developers get a better version.|

The bad news is my english has gotten worse since i stared reading code written in Inda, the good news my Hindi has gotten better. By the way the rest of us could use some better documentation.

|P.S. very clever of you to once more reference Microsoft's opening of an R+D center in Canada because of laxer immigration requirements. I'm sure you see it as a condemnation of Microsoft and not a horribly broken immigration system in the United States.|

No Bill warned us, the techies here in the USA couldn't cut it. That helped a lot (from the Stick Foot in Mouth Department). Thank god for the Canadians.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[h2_plus_O]

| Their old toolbar broke on Vista because it was referencing an API that was neither documented, supported, nor guaranteed to exist in later versions.|

This is an old argument. You control the documentation, support, and guarantees. Microsoft controls the DLL environment not Google. Please don't blame the people who use the environment, they are after all users.

Developers that don't follow the guidelines and get burned because they took a dependency on an undocumented API should be blamed for building their app around a faulty assumption. If it's not documented, it's not guaranteed to be there next time around, end of story. It's not like this hasn't been explained, publicly and repeatedly, for the last 15 years.

I understand your frustration- you want a perfectly interoperable system with perfect compatibility and APIs that do everything for you and never need to change, that consume zero resources and take no time to happen and will run on yesterday's hardware, and are completely, perfectly documented, transparent, and anticipate all future use cases and as-yet uninvented technologies adequately. The problem here is that your expectation is unrealistic.

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

|Developers that don't follow the guidelines and get burned because they took a dependency on an undocumented API should be blamed for building their app around a faulty assumption.|

I almost agree with this, but when I look back at all the documented API's that got Killed. The fire is on both sides of the API issue with Microsoft. They are not the only company to drop documented code. I have seen a lot of documented code go has by the wayside do to non-techie issues like corporate mergers, splits, and buyouts. Again, pick and choose your poison carefully. Again Embrace and Enhance aint by accident.

|If it's not documented, it's not guaranteed to be there next time around, end of story.|

Guarantees? So I am guaranteed something next time around if Microsoft buys out a competitor(or even a partner) that their acquired documented code will be there in the future. I had a lot of VB code that broke with documented API calls on patches. I Also remember the joys of VB 4.0, what are you smoking? Get out your risk calculator.

|It's not like this hasn't been explained, publicly and repeatedly, for the last 15 years.|

So if I use the documented API's from 15 year ago my apps will work? (I just broke my risk calculator on that one.)

|I understand your frustration- you want a perfectly interoperable system with perfect compatibility and APIs that do everything for you and never need to change, that consume zero resources and take no time to happen and will run on yesterday's hardware, and are completely, perfectly documented, transparent, and anticipate all future use cases and as-yet uninvented technologies adequately.|

Wow you can do that?

|The problem here is that your expectation is unrealistic.|

In Short, my expectations is that I expect my computer to run the apps that are preinstalled on it from Best Buy, that I just got, without Vista throwing DLL errors on Google when I start it up. Thank you, now I can see the unrealistic aspects of my problem.

Unrealistic? no wonder "Made in the USA" doesn't mean what it use to. Maybe Mr. Bill is right in moving to Canada...

Re:Google Should Sue, MS Broke there DLL on Vista

[deweycheetham]

|Version control aids the development process.|

No Kidding, but we usually assign version control to the least experienced members of teams because any kid on an internship can do it. Hell, there are complete products suites on multiple platforms(the Unix world has several) to help you do this. I have written many myself at the script level depending on how the development goes, but I don't really count these as suites or a major effort, rather more nuisance than anything else.

|It does nothing to help you ensure you don't break any random code that depends on your software - especially when you don't have access to that code.|

Random Code, I like that. Tell me just how much random code do you have in your operating system. In the "Old Days" if someone did find a Hack(figuring a way to do something to improve the operation, performance, or general improvement) Microsoft would call it a "Feature" and would become a permit fixture in the software.

This kind of hostile attitude has driven developers away in droves. Sad part about it, you are so closed minded to the Microsoft way you don't even know the company's own history either negative or positive.

Keep up the positive reinforcement, and us developers will all be "Goose Stepping" to your tune in know time. We all love the Gurbles routine.

|I could go on, but from this answer alone it's pretty evident that you really don't know what you're talking about.|

Come back and talk to me after you have wrote your first Million Lines of Code. And for just you, you can write your own Version Control software to assist in the process.(Like I said any intern can do it, and I have on numerous occasion just to avoid the interns.)

|You missed everything. I'm sorry for you.|

You are an inspiration to the IT field. Your lesson in Version Control have been "en lighting" and worthy of a Nobel Prize. How could I have ever have made it, all these 3 decades without your assistance. I have been saved.

Now I know that Google should Sue Microsoft. The inmates are running the asylum over there.

Assistance?

[ClosedSource]

"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.

Re:Assistance?

[Strudelkugel]

  Like the other companies involved in the MS antitrust case, they simply want the court to help them compete

If Google is going to litigate its way to success, the company is in sorry shape. Maybe they should replace Schmidt with a tobacco company exec, because that is where the litigation strategy is leading.

Interesting thought... Maybe search engine companies will be looked on with as much suspicion as tobacco companies in the future. "For those who choose to search..." It's possible that all you will have to do is replace "health" with "privacy" where you find tobacco related literature if you want to get a glimpse of the future.

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:AC

[everphilski]

(google) now set us up the targeted advertising!

Microsoft Sucks, Google Rocks

[warren_spencer_1977]

Microsoft sucks, Google Rocks. In five years, we'll be saying Google Sucks, and someone else (new guy) rocks. The more things change.... the same.

minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

court in question ruled that Microsoft created and abused an illegal monopoly in the computer operating system business.

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.

Re:minor correction

[morgan_greywolf]

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 don't recall the precise wording, but even if you consider all desktop operating systems, Apple's share is still very much a minority share. A 100% marketshare is not necessary to prosecute a company under U.S. antitrust law. General Motors had antitrust charges leveled at it for having a 50% marketshare in the 1950s..

Re:minor correction

[h2_plus_O]

I don't recall the precise wording

You don't have to: Jackson says it here:

Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[WilliamSChips]

The Sherman Act does not apply to those which are not monopolies. Morally you may have a point but legally it doesn't hold water.

This was merely a message to Microsoft...

[BobMcD]

This gesture was a really nifty way of Google telling Microsoft:

"Comply with your settlement, or we will force you to do so."

Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I'm sure if no one had complained about the whole Vista search thing, the DoJ would never have taken any issue with it at all. Or, if they had, we'd certainly never know about it.

Balmer is going to sink Google?

[warren_spencer_1977]

So Balmer throws a chair across the room and declares war on Google? It would seem otherwise now.

Free wasn't the problem

[weston]

The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free

While I'm sure some code and ideas came with Andreeson, I'm given to understand the actual codebases for Navigator and Mosaic were rather different (and indeed, if anybody's browser is based on Mosaic, you could argue it's IE, as it's a direct descendant of the Mosaic codebase under a deal between MS and U of Illinois).

then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.

I don't think that was Netscape's complaint. What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.

Netscape may well have shot itself in the foot even if none of that had happened, but it certainly didn't help at all.

Re:Free wasn't the problem

[MontyApollo]

>>What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.

I can understand that, but that was never what I heard in the news. The press always framed it a certain way - the issue was MS giving away a browser for free. The average public response was "it's their software and they can give away for free if they want. Netscape are just crybabies."

MS monopoly apologist analysis

[hellfire]

I continue to be amazed at the posts that continue to be modded up when anything about MS and monopolies gets posted.

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_beha viours

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.

Re:MS monopoly apologist analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'll label me as an "MS plant" for pointing this out, but in a "true" capitalist system, monopoly is a natural steady state. Competition is only an intermediate stage in a capitalist economy. We have artifical checks put in place to maintain this status quo as much as possible precisely because a pure capitalist system is not in the best interests of consumers.

No economics professor would ever say that "true capitalism is based on competition, not privatization" unless they were putting an unacceptable spin on the concepts. Competition often exists under capitalist systems, but not always, and sometimes not at all. This is especially true for markets with prohibitively high costs of entry; in such markets monopolies are very quick to form, and it takes substantial government subsidies to encourage competition (which of course would not exist under "true" capitalism).

Finally let me offer some personal advice: Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or a paid shill is very childish. Nothing is absolute, and it's far more dignified to promote your own opinions, rather than demean other people for their opinions.

Re:MS monopoly apologist analysis

[Ravnen]

You're right for the most part, but many economists argue that without state intervention, monopolies are only sustainable in markets where a single producer constitutes the lowest-cost method of production (looking at cost in relation to value created), i.e. where a natural monopoly exists. If you assume that every market is a natural monopoly, then the natural state under capitalism must necessarily be monopoly, but this assumption cannot be taken for granted.

Re:MS monopoly apologist analysis

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Wow, that's amazing logic. Many economists argue X causes Y. You contend Y, therefore you must prove X.

I actually would also contend that all industries are natural monopolies: due to economies of scale for the production of almost everything, and the value of brand recognition, almost everything is a natural monopoly. Further, because businesses prie future profits as well, that monopoly will continue to operate even if that price point is where perfect competion would place it. Lastly, I would contend that competitors will always merge/be aquired, as, where would the downside be?

Re:MS monopoly apologist analysis

[Ravnen]

Wow, that's amazing logic. Many economists argue X causes Y. You contend Y, therefore you must prove X.

Ah, I did not say you must prove every market is a natural monopoly, I said the assumption cannot be taken for granted, i.e. you must argue for it (as you now have done). The prior point was also referring to the sustainability of monopolies, and not to their cause per se.

I actually would also contend that all industries are natural monopolies: due to economies of scale for the production of almost everything, and the value of brand recognition, almost everything is a natural monopoly. Further, because businesses prie future profits as well, that monopoly will continue to operate even if that price point is where perfect competion would place it. Lastly, I would contend that competitors will always merge/be aquired, as, where would the downside be?

The evidence tends to suggest otherwise. Certain industries with high fixed costs can arguably be described as tending towards oligopoly, but many other industries are dominated by small firms, particularly in the services sector. There are certainly some areas where there is a tendency towards natural monopoly, particularly where fixed capital costs are very high, or where network effects are strong, but these attributes are far from universal.

Empirically, mergers fail all the time. The recent decision of DaimlerChrysler to sell most of its Chrysler unit is perhaps a good example. In theory, the merger of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler should have allowed certain functions duplicated in each firm to be combined, and for larger purchases, both potentially leading to lower costs. In practice, it didn't work out. In contrast, Porsche has in recent years been the world's most profitable car firm, despite being quite small. The failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger is hardly unique to the car industry either: in fact, most mergers fail, particularly international ones. There are a variety of reasons, but a frequent problem is differences in corporate culture.

Why isn't bigger always better? One reason is organisational structure. Small firms tend to have relatively flat organisational structures, but as a firm grows, it requires increasing layers of management to coordinate all of the employees. If the added organisational costs are offset by gains from factors such as greater specialisation, lower input costs (for buying in higher quantities) or elimination of duplicate functions, a larger size can pay off, but if not, a smaller size may be preferable.

Re:I don't understand this crap at all

[PunkOfLinux]

How do you know that netscape didn't make a more compelling? Couldn't it have easily been the "I'm fine with what I have" mentality?

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.

Re:Bring what on?

[superwiz]

Because I use the right tool for the right job. I use linux boxes and a Mac as well, but certain jobs need to quick and dirty. And that means not figuring out how to install a WiFi card for a day and a half. Of course, when I need an easy text editing, manipulation and revision control, I will use linux. A key to productive and yet happy life is to see your principles as goals rather than inflexible absolutes.

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

[mhall119]

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. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to promote their product, and trying to keep their marketshare. The problem comes in when they accomplish this not by keeping their own product better than the competition, but by keeping the competition from getting better than their own product.

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.

Exactly...

[Eric Damron]

"...as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor."

Don't you believe that integrating a competing product into their Monopoly OS IS DOING EXACTLY THAT!

I'm not talking about including separate software that doesn't have to be installed. I'm talking about integration so that it's always there. They did it with their web browser and that killed Netscape now their doing the same F**king thing with their search engine.

Even if you don't use their search engine it's still there and it still slows your system down. Microsoft knows exactly what their doing and it is illegal because of their monopoly. Monopolies can not do all the things a non-monopoly can without causing harm. That's why there are laws which Microsoft apparently feels it doesn't have to follow.

Re:Exactly...

[Mundocani]

Yeah, but we're talking about searching files on your computer here. This is a feature that has been in pretty much every OS since God was a teenager. Sure, it's evolving into faster and smarter searching and incorporating content searches as well as file name searches, but it's still just about searching your computer for your stuff. If this isn't within the domain of an OS then what is?

Google made a name for itself by indexing the internet and providing a useful way to search for content there. Now they want to extend that business to your desktop to expand their name recognition and become synonymous with the very word "search". That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing Google harm because it's continuing to provide and (arguably) improve a feature that they and every other OS been shipping for decades and which users of computers find indispensable. To me it mostly means that Google wants of piece of the desktop/OS so they can continue to grow their business and they're hoping they can use the courts to at least give them a leg up on Windows.

Or maybe...

[Eric Damron]

They're a sheep who saw the wolf coming and decided not to get eaten...

Re:tough choice

[rbanffy]

I must disagree.

Every large company in this business wants a stranglehold on the entire industry. It just happens that Microsoft has it now. Unless we have far better anti-monopoly laws than there are today, if you take one Microsoft down (or an IBM before it) it will be a question of time before another one appears. For companies like them, keeping this stranglehold is a matter of survival. If we deprive Microsoft from it, its fall will be inevitable.

As IBM has already shown us.

Not to say they have any right to abuse their monopolies - they don't. And they should be punished when they do.

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

[BewireNomali]

microsoft's desktop search is better than google's.

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

[prshaw]

>> 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.

Hmm... I might be mistaken, but I don't think Microsoft created a desktop search to interfere with Googles. I think they had one a LONG time ago, and Google is trying to make them take it out so they can replace it.

There might be some features that have changed but Windows (and Office) has shipped with a local indexing engine for quite a while now.

Google saying that Microsoft has to make it replacable just because they want to provide one seems like a bad idea to me. Is this starting down the path that any feature in any system that we want to replace we can use the courts to force the company to disable? Does the replacement have to conform to ALL the API's that the original was providing?

If Google replaces the Microsoft engine, and I was using the Microsoft engine in my application do they break me?

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

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

[Ravnen]

[I]nstead 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.

From what I've read, the only way Microsoft's search service is claimed to 'interfere' with Google's is by existing and being enabled: running two services to index content will of course slow both of them down. The fact that Microsoft's service can easily be turned off or disabled makes this complaint a nonsense. If Google's installer doesn't turn off conflicting services, Google have only themselves to blame.

If there's more to the issue that that, I would appreciate being enlightened. As it is, it looks like Microsoft simply created a better search offering, and Google are whingeing about it because their own offering is no longer competitive.

Re:tough choice

[Gerzel]

>>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Windows was actually responsible for taking the PC into mainstream use by providing an unified achitecture on which software could run. We already have millions of different hardware combinations/configurations to get our software to work with. It would be a complete developer's nightmare to also have hundreds of operating systems!! At least with Windows, you can count on APIs to partly solve the hardware problem.
>>

Responsible for mainstream use?

Oh Please. While yes indeed there are benefits to having a single architecture to work on, there are also problems as well (For one not every PC, even those that are mainstream, are used for the same purposes, also malware attacks are easier on a unified infrastructure). Also there were other systems that went mainstream long before windows. Commodore, Apple II, Machnitosh and many others. MS did not somehow make things possible for the desktop PC, they just were the direction that the majority went. As for a developer's nightmare, please, it only seems that way because developers are used to a single architecture enviroment. This is changing. There are techniques that can be used to make code not only well written but easilly portable to different systems.

While I do agree that some standardization between architecture will occur and is good (for example the three letter suffixes attached to file types) standardization did not allow the PC to enter the mainstream, nor did MS somehow magically create some unified architecture. In fact, many of MS's actions to support proprietary formats, and closed source fight against standardization and make it more difficult for developers.

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[644bd346996]

The thing is, Apple's operating system actually does comply with plenty of open standards that have been implemented by others as well (single unix spec, openstep, etc.) On top of that, OS X ships with several major open source packages that function pretty much the same as on other platforms (X11, bsd userland, apache, gcc, etc.)

While it is true that most of the Windows APIs are now accessible to mortals (at some cost), Apple has the track record of actually being interoperable and supporting portable software. The fact that MS and Apple control their respective GUIs tightly is unrelated to the openness of their platforms. The fact that a python script or x11 app can run on a stock (plus optional stuff from the install dvds) OS X system is what makes it an open platform.

The things Apple has done with their proprietary GUI libraries are no better or worse than what MS has done with DirectX, but Apple leaves you an out. With OS X, you still have a real and usable operating system when you choose not to boot into the Aqua UI. With windows, you can't escape.

Re:tough choice

[mrsteveman1]

Let's also not forget the "Open" standard of ACPI that was intentionally complicated to ensure Microsoft had an edge.

I would rather support one each of OS X, Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD, than one of Windows.

Boo Hoo Hoogle.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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?

Re:[AC] No shit, sherlock

[everphilski]

I'm not pro-Microsoft, but I'm no Google fan boy either. I just wanted to point out the error in the argument presented.

Sicilian Message?

[jagdish]

Did they wrap a fish in the anti trust papers.

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

[weicco]

You are absolutely right. There is API for disabling services. There is API to interact with Windows Search. There is command line tool to disable services. Etc. Etc. I've written about this numerous times and if I remember correctly couple of my posts here in Slashdot even got +5 informative (woohoo!). So only question to ask is, when's the Google Operating System about to be released?

So I think the proper ordering of things goes like...

1. deal away with competition by using the court system
2. release your own OS with your own integrated desktop search
3. profile your own users with your own profiler service integrated to your own OS and to your own integrated desktop search
4. profit a lot!

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

[IamTheRealMike]

OK, but the lack of an API to disable Vistas indexing isn't what's being contested. In fact, you can read the amicus brief Google submitted to the courts about the issue here.

Here's the key quote:

Google welcomes the efforts of the parties to address Microsoft's violation by taking steps to promote user and OEM choice. At the same time, from what Google understands of the remedies, it appears that more may need to be done to provide a truly unbiased choice of desktop search products in Vista and achieve compliance with the Final Judgment.

The proposed remedial measures regarding user access points are only vaguely described in the status report, and it is not immediately apparent that they will give users and OEMs the rights to which they are entitled under III.H. 1 (a) of the Final Judgment. For example, it appears that Microsoft will continue to show its own desktop search results when users run searches from prominent shortcuts and menu entries throughout the operating system, though users will now be given a mechanism to request results from their chosen desktop search product by taking a second step after they have first viewed results from Microsoft's product.

In addition, although the status report does not mention the fact that one of the menu entries in the Vista Start menu and in various "right-click" menus is the word "Search," Google understands that Microsoft may intend to remove these menu entries from Vista and deprive users of these access points altogether rather than provide the user choice required under III.H. 1 (a) of the Final Judgment. With respect to the automatic invocation of Microsoft's desktop search product following the boot sequence, which implicates III.H. I1(b) of the Final Judgment, it appears that the proposed measures would not result in any changes being made in the operating system. Instead, Microsoft will provide unspecified technical information about indexing to OEMs Independent Software Vendors, and end users.

It seems to me that the complaint is about Microsofts solution either making users jump through hoops (extra clicking for each search) to access the newly installed desktop search engine, or about them possibly just removing UI elements instead of making them configurable. Now you could argue that it's OK for parts of the Vista UI to die or become useless if you disable Vista search on the grounds that you can always create your own UI elsewhere, but I think that would be a bit silly. A key part of the way IE 4 was tied into Windows was via ubiquitous UI integration - whilst users could certainly install an alternative browser, the fact that most parts of the Windows UI still started up IE if you clicked them was a serious problem for Netscape.

My disclaimer is here - I do work for Google but not on anything related to desktop search. I contacted one of our legal/PR people about these Vista Search stories and they told me about this brief, which was released to reporters. As should hopefully be obvious, the opinions I stated here are only my own. As to why this brief is not on our own website, I do not know ....

Gotta call you on this one

[cbhacking]

The AV comment is pure bullshit. Absolutely 100% incorrect.

For quite a while Live OneCare wasn't even available for Vista. AFAIK it STILL hasn't been released for the 64-bit edition, though there is a port in progress.

By comparison, Trend Micro had a public beta of their PC-Cillin 2007 by the time Vista was in public beta (build 5384, well over a year ago). It supports Vista 32-bit and 64-bit editions (as well as XP and 2000).

When I installed the Vista beta and Security Center suggested I install an AV, I clicked the link to recommend one (just for the heck of it, I wasn't going to pay for one as was expecting that's what I'd get... but I also knew Vista's kernel security was going to play havoc with things like Norton Internet Rootkit). Microsoft's own link directed me to PC-Cillin (which I did in fact install, as it was a free beta). I believe OneCare was in beta at the time as well, but was 32-bit XP only. What I am quite sure of is that this was BEFORE Symantec and McAfee strong-armed MS (using this exact type of thing, the "We know that it's not about making your OS better, it's about shutting out compatitors and that's not OK because you were a monopolist say play nice with us!") into opening up PatchGuard. MS, fully aware that PatchGuard was going to interfere with the standard kernel-level hook for realtime AV scanning, had released an API to allow an antivirus program to scan files as they were accessed... and even before Symantec, McAfee, of MS themselves managed to do so, Trend Micro had a perfectly viable product based on that API.

While I don't run PC-Cillin anymore, I can certainly say it was a well-designed program and I experienced none of the numerous problems and annoyances surrounding its better-known competitors. If I were to pay for any AV program, it would probably be that one.

Re:Gotta call you on this one

[mhall119]

I'll have to concede the AV point to you, since I use neither AV software nor Vista. I'm just going by the AV companies complaints that proceeded Vista's launch.

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

[weicco]

Thank you! Finally someone explained what's all this about. But still I don't see any problem here, at least without further explanation. If you click Start-button you will see "search" option there. What's preventing Google to add "Search using Google" button there? Or is it that Google want's to be the sole search engine and front-end in Windows?

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

[Ravnen]

Ah, so the complaint is about the search boxes in the Explorer UI, and not the search service. In that case, there is at least a reasonable basis for the complaint, but the suggestion that searching the local file system is 'middleware' is dubious at best: a content indexing service has been a standard feature of Windows since Windows 2000, and a basic search interface has always been part of Explorer. The primary difference in Vista is simply that the two features have been replaced by much improved versions, which work together and offer a better and more accessible UI.

The only real argument for the middleware claim is that Microsoft distributes Windows Desktop Search separately for Windows XP. However, this is arguably just an upgrade to the older indexing and search features in XP, and not a separate product. On the whole, the middleware argument is extremely weak, even if it is perhaps not entirely without merit.

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[Laserwulf]

and they don't abuse their dominance in one market to get into another market
You know, they also happen to make a line of media-players, called iPods, which synch with this nifty program called iTunes...

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[644bd346996]

So? The iPod got where it is on its own, without any help from the Mac. And while the iPod has certainly made iTunes more popular, iTunes is still a free application and iPod users don't have to use it unless they are using DRM'd music or purchasing from iTMS. It isn't like the music iTunes offers is not available on CDs too. I don't see any monopolistic abuse there. Just the usual mess with DRM and a product (iPod) that won its dominance in the market fairly.

Re:What of Mac's Finder?

[Laserwulf]

The iPod got where it is on its own, without any help from the Mac.
I didn't mention anything about Macs.

iPod users don't have to use it unless they are using DRM'd music or purchasing from iTMS
There's a way to put music/videos/pics onto an iPod without iTunes? (Rockbox firmware doesn't count, as the non-Slashdot crowd doesn't even know about it.)

I don't see any monopolistic abuse there. Just the usual mess with DRM and a product (iPod) that won its dominance in the market fairly.
Microsoft did the same thing bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. They caused the death of Netscape; is there any online music store as widely-known as iTunes, which just happens to ship with each & every iPod?

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

[mhall119]

But still I don't see any problem here, at least without further explanation. If you click Start-button you will see "search" option there. What's preventing Google to add "Search using Google" button there? Or is it that Google want's to be the sole search engine and front-end in Windows? The problem is that for people who want to use Google's desktop search on Vista, they have 2 options:

1.) Run both MS and Google indexers, and notice performance issues related to having 2 indexing your hard drive at the same time
or
2.) Disable the MS indexer and loose file system search functionality from within Windows Explorer and other Vista components.

Either way, installing Google Desktop Search on Vista now causes an inconvenience for the user, so people are less likely to do so.

Re:Bring what on?

[dedazo]

You completely missed the OPs point and quoted the wrong part of his post, as usual, because it's more convenient. This is the portion you should have paid attention to:

A key to productive and yet happy life is to see your principles as goals rather than inflexible absolutes.

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

[ClassMyAss]

Google saying that Microsoft has to make it replacable just because they want to provide one seems like a bad idea to me. Is this starting down the path that any feature in any system that we want to replace we can use the courts to force the company to disable?

Not in the least - the only reason this is even being considered in this case is that Microsoft got bitchslapped by the Justice Department a while ago because it was abusing its OS dominance to try and push its way into other markets. So there is only a case here if it turns out that whatever Microsoft is doing amounts to exactly that. Does it? I don't really know, I don't use Vista and I don't develop search offerings on it, so I'm not sure if Microsoft has been playing dirty here to try to mess up Google's desktop search. If they have been, then certainly they should be forced to stop. But merely having the feature is not enough, it would have to be the case that their feature had the effect of rendering competing offerings impossible.

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

[weicco]

Yes I can see the problem now. But still there's technical solutions available. You can add plugins to Explorer like TortoiseSVN does for an example. You can control context menus in Explorer. You can do lot's of customization if you please. In fact I just found this . I don't know how and if it works or does it even work with Vista but I'm sure it can be made to work with Vista.

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

[mhall119]

The problem still remains that in order to keep Google's search from slowing down your system, you have to disable parts of Vista that should not have to be disabled. That is Google's complaint, that Microsoft has designed Vista such that nobody would want to stop the Windows Indexer, and therefore by performance extension, nobody would want to run Google's desktop search. Imagine if you had to remove IE in order for Firefox to work right, would you do it? Or would you just use IE?

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

[weicco]

What the heck! How about if I install Google search, disable Windows search, and then some other 3rd party search (without disabling Google search). Then I'd have Google search causing performance issues which is Google's fault? This is just plain stupid. And that IE and Firefox thing is flawed since IE isn't performing system wide services on the background.

I'm wondering if Google should concentrate more on development and less on playing pool and tennis (see that Google video shown on Oprah, can be found from Youtube I think).

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

[mhall119]

What the heck! How about if I install Google search, disable Windows search, and then some other 3rd party search (without disabling Google search). Then I'd have Google search causing performance issues which is Google's fault? But you could uninstall Google search without breaking anything else. You can't stop Windows search without breaking other parts of Vista. The complaint isn't that there are performance issues running both, it's that disabling the Windows indexer unnecessarily disables other functionality the user would want to keep using, thus making it undesirable to stop the Windows indexer, and making it undesirable to run Google's competing product.

This is just plain stupid. And that IE and Firefox thing is flawed since IE isn't performing system wide services on the background. This is actually quite accurate since it was one of the main reasons Microsoft was penalized. Before the monopoly suit, you couldn't tell programs like Outlook or Office that HTML files or HTTP links should be opened in a different browser, they only opened IE. So even if you wanted to use Netscape, you still needed IE to use the link functions in Outlook or Office. So people were faced with the choice of using two different browsers, or using IE only. As we all know from history, they mostly chose to use only one browser, even before IE became better than Netscape. Going back to search, people are faced with the choice of using two desktop search systems, or using only Windows Search. We all know that history repeats itself.