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?

[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?

[Ravnen]

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

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

Re:And how is OSX Spotlight any different?

[MontyApollo]

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

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

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

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

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

judge

[wwmedia]

doesn't the judge read slashdot?

doesn't he know that

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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?