Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the play-fair-or-i'll-tell-mom dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."

80 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Well if anyone knows... by lisany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

    1. Re:Well if anyone knows... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Knave75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

      I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?

      That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.

    3. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. Worse, I expect to see a bunch of small companies coming out of the woodworks who will cry about Google abuse. Then the money will be traced back to MS on the vast majority of them. Lost in all that FUD and fakery from MS probably will be a couple of companies that do feel like they can not take on Google. IOW, the multitude of lies and FUD from MS will serve to obscure what is really going on.

      I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Well if anyone knows... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did the kettle just call the pot black?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony. I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation. I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through. The only reason I'm starting to belive Google isn't doing evil things in the OEM bundling business is because that monopoly is already occupied. Google has seen their chance in the online ad business and they'll do anything in their power to build a monopoly there. But sure, you just go ahead and point fingers at Microsoft.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Well if anyone knows... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now.
      Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
      or
      "Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool" ?
      But your point is well taken.
      Can't let the bugbear-as-messenger become a distractor, for all the idea of "shooting the messenger" never seemed more appropriate.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    8. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Onan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wait Microsoft used to be cool? When was that?

      Was it in 1976, when their only actual product (BASIC) was less well-known for its use than for Bill Gates's whining letter to the community scolding them for piracy?

      Or was it in 1980, when they managed to dupe IBM into shipping machines with an OS they licensed in beta form, ported badly, and quietly acquired the rights to just before IBM made it popular?

      Those events are my first knowledge of Microsoft, so maybe they had a few seconds of coolness somewhere even earlier than that. But if so, it was in a far more fetal stage than Google's current one.

    9. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that in demolishing one monopoly we shouldn't simply allow another to rise in its place, but Microsoft on a commercial and ethical level has no right complaining. Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices.

      Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Well if anyone knows... by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft was cool at two points in their history. Just before BG wrote the letter you mention, and when they bought SubLogic to get what became the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

      The basically sucked the rest of the time.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:Well if anyone knows... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then the money will be traced back to MS

      SCO Search?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    12. Re:Well if anyone knows... by joto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices
      Sure, but when google acquired doubleclick, they certainly made sure they'd be able to walk that path. And while they've been careful not to trample over smaller companies the way Microsoft does, it's only because they're wiser, and moving slower, so they can achieve world dominance over Internet advertizing without too many people complaining loudly. Google is positioning themselves to be as important as any of the government-monopoly utilities, such as water, sewage, or electricity. What face they will show then is anyones guess, but they are certainly positioning themselves to become a monopoly.

      Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed
      Uhm, no. Yesterday it was the computers themselves that was important. Today it's what's on the web that's important. Microsoft controls the operating system and browser. Google controls everything else. This is analogous to the situation between Intel and Microsoft a decade ago, only one level higher in the abstraction hierarchy. Google is todays equivalent of Microsoft 10 years ago.
    13. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation.

      This would be similar to having China pointing their finger at GWB and saying that he is a totalitarian. His admin shows elements of that, but they certainly are not. Likewise, in the courts, if you have been shown to be a liar, you are rarely used as a witness (and certainly none that you want to have credibility). MS is the WRONG company to be speaking out about this. What does Yahoo have to say about this? And a really great example is that back in 97 (actually, even before then), we were griping on the net that AltaVista had a monopoly on search. Everybody was using it. Where are they today?

      Look, Google does not have a monopoly. While they certainly appear to be rocketing towards it, they are not likely to obtain it. Why? Because South Korea, china, and Russia are all backing their own search engines. Even EU is trying to build one. So, will Google obtain it? Not likely. But lets assume that they do. Is it illegal? Nope. Not one iota. What is illegal, is the abuse of that position. MS started from the git-go, abusing everything. In fact, so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it. They seem to want to work with just about everybody, and expand the market rather than control it. About the ONLY company who is likely to oppose this IS MS. This combined with Linux appears to be slowly killing MS's monopoly. That is WHY MS is screaming to EU.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:Well if anyone knows... by ceeam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently it smoked it.

    16. Re:Well if anyone knows... by yukk · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd listen to them if, on page 3 of their document, competing pipes didn't suddenly become demphasised by taking on spindly shapes and MSN/Yahoo pipes didn't grey out and hide behind big red boxes.
      If all those competing pipes were shown properly, everyone would see that competition still holds over 1/3 of the market in both areas mapped out instead of it appearing that a monster has taken over the advertising world.
      You don't get to be a real monopoly like Microsoft without twisting the "truth", spinning FUD and using deceptive practices like these warped diagrams.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    17. Re:Well if anyone knows... by trianglman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      What does this have to do with Google's take over of online advertising? Google isolating itself would hurt more than anything. MS isolating itself to x86 was a business move that helped it grow because the other competitors to x86 were weakening, not growing stronger as Firefox and Safari are doing now against IE in the web sphere.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      You may have a cheaper distribution path, but you have the same difficulty breaking into the market. Do you think that website X would rather go with a large, well established advertiser such as Google or DoubleClick, or with Advertiser Joe Shmo to serve ads on their page? You are likely to get a very small niche along the lines of Linux at best, but you have very little chance of getting more than a couple percent of the internet's ad revenue, even if your product is light years ahead of Google's tools.

      --
      Clones are people two.
    18. Re:Well if anyone knows... by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was also a very brief interval in 1985 between the time that Excel was released, and proved that it could develop and deploy an arguably innovative product, and the time when MS Windows was released and conclusively proved that it could not. But the poster is correct. For the most part every time ones tries to take it seriously as a firm that innovates to helps it user, for instance MS Office 95, MS shows that such occurrences are flukes, for example MS Office 97 onward. The true purpose is to extract residuals, just like any other parasite.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    19. Re:Well if anyone knows... by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.

      We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.

      What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.

      You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?

      That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.

      Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".

      When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    20. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply do not agree. Microsoft's business model relied upon its stranglehold of the x86 PC marketplace and its ability to beat OEMs into supplying only its operating system on their machines. During that key period between the late 1980s and early 1990s when all the other competitor platforms were dropping off, they were able to beat the market into submission by unethical and illegal practices.

      Thus far I know of no one saying that Google is doing anything illegal. Yes, when they go in purchase something like Doubleclick we should be wary, but there is no meaningful analogy between the growth of the two companies. Microsoft was willing to bully and extort its way into dominance, and because the wheels of the market watchdogs are so slow, by the time they first went after Microsoft for those nasty OEM deals, it was too late.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Well if anyone knows... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, I think it would be Linus=God and Internet=Heaven if Tux=Jesus.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    22. Re:Well if anyone knows... by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhhh...you may want to take a look around.
      Google is a multi-billion dollar company and guess where every cent of their money comes from?
      Yep. Adwords.

      They arent growing, they have already grown.
      They give free email, free search, free maps, donate millions to open source projects and more all from those little text ads.

      I dont think DoubleClick is a big deal for Google. They would like it but if they dont get it then the world isnt over.
      DoubleClick deals with a completely different segment of the market to Adwords and they want to get in to that side as well.

    23. Re:Well if anyone knows... by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh Google is already *the* ad industry. Nearly every single cent they make comes from ads.

      Plus millions of those ad dollars are going to open source projects and other good causes.

      So far Google hasnt shown any reason to make us doubt their good intentions.

    24. Re:Well if anyone knows... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Buying something cool doesn't make you cool. Look at all those "casual friday" guys buying Harley-Davidson motorcycles! Does that make them "bikers" now? NO! It doesn't! When my brother was talking about having his motorcycle SHIPPED to the Sturges rally, I nearly exploded with internal laughter!

    25. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I said, I don't think that we should allow a growing behemoth like Google to just wantonly buy companies and technologies without considering the risks to a free marketplace. That is the mistake that was made with Microsoft. Everyone was so happy to see it killing IBM's powerful market position in the mid and late 1980s that they didn't stop to think that they might have to start shooting Microsoft down in its turn. And we shouldn't make the same mistake with Google, that just because it's doing what, up until recently, governments haven't been able to do and start taking some of the wind out of Redmond's sails, that we should just simply wave a happy thank you to Google until the day that we discover that it isn't all that nice a company.

      But, by the same token, the platform that Google's technologies work on is significantly different than the one that Microsoft gained dominance on. The x86-based PC was a bottleneck that Microsoft could use to great effect. Only a limited number of player produce it, only a limited number of players distribute it, and, because the DoJ was several years too late, those restrictive OEM agreements basically gave Microsoft vast control of what went on to the overwhelming majority of personal computers sold throughout the world.

      The web simply isn't like it. There's no way to set up a roadblock in the distribution of a web site. Microsoft tried that with the serious incompatibilities it intentionally put into Internet Explorer, and in the end, guys like Google put up with the development and support pain and worked around various browser idiosyncrasies. Rather than trying to beat Microsoft head on, these guys have played the game by the rules Microsoft created once it had wiped out Netscape as a competitor.

      We're within five years by my guestimate of a serious competitor to the Windows-Office monopoly which is the core of Microsoft's business. Everything else; Zune, XBox etc. are meaningless in what keeps Microsoft ticking. They are scared, and watch for them to start trying to open channels to various governments to try to attack Google legalistically. We're going to see patent bombs being thrown within the next year or two against open source projects that look like they're going to eat into Microsoft. They already have a disaster with Vista, and their business model is dangerously close to compromise.

      It's gonna get ugly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Well if anyone knows... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google doesn't control shit. You guys talk as though they're the US Government. They've got market dominance for a glorified version of the Yellow Pages. That gives them zero hold on anything.

      Now, they might be able to set themselves up as a barrier to advertisers reaching the public and prop up third parties in that fashion, but really, who is going to stick with a Yellow Pages that screws around with the listings?

      It's not like there aren't a bakers dozen would be search giants waiting in the wings if they ever drop the ball.

      The Google monopoly involves no leverage on anyone, which makes their position far more precarious than Microsoft ever was. If everyone went "What a bunch of dickheads, I don't want to deal with them anymore", that would be the end of Google, just like that.

      Completely different beasts.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    27. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Was I saying otherwise? Really, did you see that anywhere?

      Let's talk about Google and stop hiding behind Microsoft's bad motives. The article is about what Google is doing and the bulk of your post is blatantly off-topic.

      As someone else here has said by now which I was essentially saying: Tu quoque.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    28. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Allador · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically saying that because MS didnt do partition labels and path separators like Unix, that they suck.

      MS uses \ (the backslash) for path separators, unix-a-likes use forward slash /.

      MS uses drive letters (C:, D:, etc) for partition labels, wherease unix-likes just use regular labels, like / or /swap.

      It's fairly arguable that / for root, /swap for swap, etc are better than C:\ and so forth, and likewise for path separators.

      The Unix approach is arguable a little cleaner/simpler, but they're both fairly arbitrary.

    29. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everyone else uses /, so of course MS has to try and be different.

      Macintosh uses (or used, before it was Unix) a colon as a path separator. So there.

      But the part you're missing, none of these systems (NONE of them) were designed to inter-operate with each other. It just simply was not part of the spec they were building from. Considering that, the path separator *is* entirely arbitrary. (Sure, it can cause problems *now* that systems inter-operate, but the design of DOS couldn't have anticipated that back when it was built.)

      In both cases, you have to mount a partition in order to access it. Hiding the idea of mounting is another stupid move from MS -- the assumption that you always mount something that's plugged in. The problem comes up with removable drives, which need to be unmounted before ejecting. There are various workarounds now, but it was worse with floppy drives. Basically Windows would try to write a disk as soon as possible, disabling all multitasking, so that you could see when it was done.

      I like how the concept of "user friendliness" doesn't exist in your world. Telling people they have to "mount" and "dismount" drives is idiotic, because nobody other than Slashdot nerds will understand why, or for that matter care. If it was a setting, they'd just set everything to automatically mount anyway. If it wasn't a setting, they'd know you have to do the magic "mount" command before their CD works, and they'd do it by habit every time anyway. Having the OS automatically do it by default is the only logical way.

      Apple's solution of physically locking the disk in the drive until it was "unmounted" is a better solution, of course, but Microsoft had to work with the hardware that was available to them.

      Yet a case where someome may want to do just one of them, but MS assumes you want to do both at once.

      When? Why? What would be the point of creating a partition with no filesystem on it?

      You're complaining that Microsoft doesn't support an edge-case that perhaps one in ten thousand people would ever want to do? Seriously?

      --
      Comment of the year
    30. Re:Well if anyone knows... by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, where MS went with the path separator was largely predetermined by an earlier decision. When they needed an option character for their commands, they chose '/' instead of '-' in versions of MS-DOS that didn't yet support directories.

      Letters as drive labels made lots of sense when that was the only way to distinguish a device's files from another device's files.

      Once directory support was added, MS's developers really wanted to use '/' so it would look like Unix. However, they were already using it as an option character. Making the command interpreter distinguish between an option and a path when both started with the same character would have been a mess. Getting people to change from '/' to '-' for options and then using '/' for directories would have been a support nightmare. So MS bit the bullet and preserved backwards compatibility with earlier mistakes.

      They chose a character that was little used by everyone other than programmers, and it resembled the Unix path separator as a mirror image (I'm sure there's some font set where they look a little less alike, but...). So MS, while basically screwing the pooch on a path separator, did so by lack of foresight and not through an arbitrary decision to be different.

      DOS didn't even use file handles, pipes, or command redirection until 2.0 so the path separator was far from the only thing that was strange about it to Unix programmers and Unix users.

      So yes, MS operating systems have pretty much always sucked from a Unix user's perspective. However, for its day on home micros, MS-DOS was pretty cool compared to most of the alternatives until OS/2 came out. Once the 386 was mainstream, though, the free Unixes (and the original SCO) started targeting it. So OS/2, BSD, QNX, and Linux might be better than DOS, but they weren't there in the beginning.

      From here down is a small treatise on what MS has done wrong, what they've done right, the state of MS vs. some alternatives, and some possible reasons. It follows from the above, but meanders well away from the topic at hand. I thought I'd give fair warning, so if you don't want to get too distracted you can just skip to another part of the thread.

      MS also did a decent job, in my estimation, of making the Windows 9x compatible with enough DOS applications to make it worthwhile. They also made sure XP would run enough Win 9x apps to make it worthwhile. I haven't yet done any extensive testing of Vista because I can't get past the initial bad taste it leaves with me. From what I've read and heard from others, it seems the new OS breaks far more apps than the previous milestone OSes from Microsoft. That's largely the application vendors' fault, since it has to do with improper use of the weaknesses of XP. MS will still get most of the blame.

      Other problems of Vista, like the large number of memory-bloated background tasks, probably were design trade-offs on Microsoft's part. Very likely, with a commercial OS being about five years behind schedule, there are things the developers at MS would have like to do better. They probably would have liked to simplify parts of the OS. They surely would have liked to optimize it more. However, doing more work for the sake of elegance and pushing back the delivery date even more was probably not a bankable decision.

      The strength of Open Source software that's most often mentioned is probably the many eyes that can help find bugs. Another common one is that those many eyes can speed development. Yet another is that you're not trapped by one vendor, and that even if you're not a programmer you can at least still pay a third party to modify the source. On that Microsoft is probably really up against, though, is one that I don't see mentioned very often. In a command-and-control situation with a commercial goal like at Microsoft, what those limited eyes work on is dictated by the goals of the people at the top. With Open Source, the eyes look where the individual finds something interesting. If that means replacing a function th

  2. I just don't see the connection by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is teaming with an online marketing company giving Google quite the stronghold that MS actually has? I mean- it's not like this means Google owns the billboards and television commercials.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  3. Confidential by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    1. Re:Confidential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anyone else notice it was created on Mac OS x; "Mac OS X 10.4.11 Quartz PDFContext"

    2. Re:Confidential by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, when I noticed that, I promptly closed the PDF after reading the first three pages. ;-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  4. Re:Pot & Kettle? by snoyberg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everyone please ignore this post, it's another stupid myminicity thing...

    --
    Thank God for evolution.
  5. Re:Pot & Kettle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    you should visit the guy in fohootville. he will give you a lesson in slashdot trolling

  6. Re:Hello by nuzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it make their claims wrong?

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  7. As an old prof once told me.... by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who can, do. Those who can't....litigate.

    It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.

    From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

    1. Re:As an old prof once told me.... by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

      Ummm...Ayn Rand wrote fiction, you know. You can't judge the court system by non-real happenings in it.

  8. not the whole story by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i don't like MS, but i can agree with MS, their story certainly contains grains of truth, but i think MS has other things it should worry about than the AD-market when talking about google. The fact is, google moves the "desktop" away from the windows-platform, and that should worry MS a lot more than the Advertising market, because that is the hart of the MS-empire.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  9. Re:Microsoft knows by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft could defeat Google in this arena by bundling Firefox+Adblock with their operating system :)

    --
    Software patents delenda est.
  10. Re:Missing? by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. Re:The answer is simple - arrange a trade by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It cant do it. Because it is impossible to really document everything in WinXP. The code is the document. It is cobbled together and grew organically for some 20 years of spaghetti development. So they just cant do it, even if they wanted to.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  12. In other news... by calebt3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Microsoft recently acquired the copyright on monopolies and is demanding royalty payments.

    1. Re:In other news... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes I got the humor there but I got to bed late last night. So I shall pedantically point out, as if you weren't just joking, that Parker Brothers owns the copyright to Monopoly.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  13. Bologna. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course it can be done. Wine is about 90% functional and they got all that with simple observation and no access to the code whatsoever. Same goes for the Samba crew.

    If you had the code in front of you, it would become simple.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Bologna. by orclevegam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forgot that the Wine and Samba guys had good developers and somewhat limited goals, where as MS has corporate slaves^Wdevelopers (for the record I'm a corporate developer, but not a MS one) and has always attempted to maintain backwards compatibility (which means implementing not only the old API, but all the old bugs as well). From the stories I've heard this is also a side-effect of the way teams are broken out at MS. Where as in the OSS world the goal is on co-operation in large corporations like MS middle managers are often more interested in carving out their own domains and will even go as far as sabotaging other projects to make theirs look better. It's this mentality that has led developers at MS to put hidden optimized backdoors and function calls all over the place that allows them to write software that doesn't follow the API, but performs better than code that does follow the API. This also tends to lead to a sort of NIHS where developers unaware of the hidden functions others created recreate the same functions.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  14. Enforcing monopoly laws by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.

    If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.

    Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?

    The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.

    Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.

  15. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

    Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.

  16. Re:Hello by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't necessarily think that their claim is wrong, or anyone making the same claim. However, what I may disagree with, is how MS comes up with their numbers and results. MS is known to pay think tanks and such, as well as their own internal research to make sure the results skew in the direction they want it to, whether its noting that there is now competition in the OS market to law makers, and at the same time posting results for their shareholders that they have a stranglehold and a guaranteed revenue stream.

    The only results I will believe are from true third party's, and that goes for anyone, not just MS

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  17. Its Obvious... by LowlyWorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is an "E" in Google.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  18. Microsoft is big and powerful by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Funny

    So instead of complaining why don't they sort out their own tarnished image and produce a good alternative?

  19. Re:MS is just seeking parity by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.

  20. Re:MS is just seeking parity by DaleGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS

    Got any references for that?

    MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
    Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.
  21. Re:Any less true? by Repossessed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is a monopo;y true (in that they have a majority of the online ads market). I fail to see what Google has done to damage competition though, aside from having name recognition/good products.

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  22. Re:Any less true? by pete.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly. It is when the monopoly uses its market size to crush competition, like MS did with Netscape for instance, that it becomes illegal. By giving away a web browser for free they made it so Netscape couldn't compete in the open market and survive financially.

  23. How sad by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Funny

    I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    1. Re:How sad by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?

      If ./ readers haven't noticed, Googles gross revenue is getting mightily close to M$FT. In fact, if you extrapolate the growth, 2008 will likely be the year Google surpasses M$FT in gross revenue.

      M$FT also knows Google could fire a missile right at M$FT that would be hard to take. Imagine if Google put out GooLinux, one click download and install with Open Office.....right over XP or Vista. Not a joke either.

      M$FT knows while they were wasting their time/energy on Linux, Google made an end run on them and are now in a position to surely hurt M$FT right where it counts, in the OS/Office. Linux is the knife, Google is the real enemy.

      And Google isn't a monopoly, Microsoft is. When I can buy a commodity Dell or HP from Best Buy without the M$FT tax, I will say the monopoly is over.

  24. Series of Tubes by Ruke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else notice that Microsoft chose to represent internet advertising as a series of tubes? Apparently, this market isn't something you can just dump something on...

  25. Re:Turtle Monopoly by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am still waiting to see someone claim that "mother earth" has a monopoly on turtles. Btw, I like turtles.

    It's obviously a vertical monopoly. Because -- as everyone knows -- it's turtles all the way down.
  26. The Other Fear by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My problem with the merger is that since Doubleclick is one of the most obnoxious ad-pushers and a notoriously unscrupulous and insecure data miner, I'm afraid I'll have to look elsewhere for my search needs and delete all google cookies at once.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  27. Not to be a detractor by euxneks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to be a detractor, as I hate MS as much as every other sane person does, but monopolies in any form in my opinion are BAD. Just because it's Microsoft that has a competing product and is whining doesn't mean that there might be a genuine problem with the Google/Doubleclick merger or whatever it is. I don't know anything about this whole affair, but it's not right to just offhandedly dismiss the claims because Microsoft is making them.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  28. Re:MS is just seeking parity by NMerriam · · Score: 2

    Good job, FOSSies. You've damned us all


    Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!

    Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  29. Question. How is this different from... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this different from the radio stations asking the government to look into the contracts that the members of the RIAA have with their recording artists? As I recall, we were all pretty happy about that.

    --

    Technoli
  30. Microsoft? Ads? Hello? by BigBlueOx · · Score: 2

    um ... and why is Microsoft worried about selling advertising? Aren't they are software company that buys advertising? Shouldn't they, like, be more concerned about making an operating system that works? Or, like, an office suite that doesn't crash my PC?

    Why am I asking you?

  31. Re:Any less true? by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (that is, 78% of all ads served to the Web pages of publishers who do not have proprietary ad-serving toolstoday, only MSN and Yahoo! have such tools
    The claim the MSN and Yahoo are the only 2 companies with their own advertising tech is laughable. To start with, *anybody* can create a system of barter over email and Paypal. And I visit websites whose owners actively make a living that way. As far as private Doubleclick style software goes, the Keencorp pages seem to be littered with ads served off of something called 'gavsad', which seems a good example of 'publishers with proprietary ad-serving tools' to me.

    The complaints also seem to ignore the rich plethora of small, hardly heard of ad networks/tools that various websites use. (Indieclick and Project Wonderful both come to mind). These ad companies seem to manage to exist without any real threat from monopolies.

    Internet advertising seems to be a bad place to hope to squeeze the life out of all the competition simply by being bigger. It's not like traditional businesses. Overhead costs are largely linear, there are no suppliers to fight with simply because the small guy is beneath their notice. And refusing to use one product will never prevent you from using a different one.

    Google also fails to engage in ani anti competitive tactics. Nobody is ever asked to sign contracts that prevent them from using a Google competitor as well (Something Microsoft continues in to this day). Nobody is refused search results or advertisement because they're competitors. (Given the dominance of Windows Live junk ads out there, Microsoft knows this damned well). And frankly, simply because Google *might* commit a crime at some point in the future, is no reason for them to be punished now.
    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  32. even more ironic by dasgeht · · Score: 3, Funny
    The pdf was produced on a Mac:

    ~$ pdfinfo bitsonlinead.prf.pdf
    Title: doc 3.ppt
    Author: Leah Hitchings
    Creator: PowerPoint
    Producer: Mac OS X 10.4.11 Quartz PDFContext
    ...
    probably because MS sent the document in their proprietary format and the NY Times had to convert it - using a Mac - to a more readable form.
  33. Yahoo is on both sides by Marcion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting in the PDF, the first shows Google differently than Yahoo. Google is put together as if it is some outrageous monopoly, but yahoo is put at both ends.

    --
    My little Linux and tech blog
    1. Re:Yahoo is on both sides by teh_commodore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also interesting to note in the PDF: on page one, Yahoo and MSN are listed as intergrated partners.
      When google was asked for comment, their response was:
      "Did you mean: integrated"

      --
      --"insert clever quote here"
  34. Yea, I know..... by tacokill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, but the premise I was making made the example relevant. Of course I know Rand's character was fictional but the character was there to demonstrate the relationship between business and the state.

    Don't you remember WHY Reardon was in the courts in the first place? Because his competitors complained that his product was better than theirs.

    While fictional, it is very appropriate.

  35. OH NO by twentynine · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd be mad if my business finally had competition, too

  36. Microsoft didn't go there... by Undead+Ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From Story"Perhaps Microsoft didn't go there because it didn't have the evidence to support a case for the deal harming consumers"

    I don't think Microsoft really considers consumers that way. If they did, do you really think Microsoft would be stuffing Vista down consumer's throats?

    Ed

  37. Re:Any less true? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't see how this deal makes Google a monopoly. This deal gives Google the largest market share and makes it the biggest player on the block. One of the definitions of monopoly is that no other close substitutes exist. As far as I know, companies can still go to MS and Yahoo if they wanted.

    Even if it were a monopoly, that does not make it illegal. People seem to attach a stigma to the word "monopoly" when in itself a monopoly is not per se illegal. What got Microsoft in trouble was how it obtained its monopoly and the tactics it used to protect their monopoly by bullying their competitors and their partners. That lead to harm to consumers. What MS has failed to explain is how this deal harms consumers. It has explained how this deal will harm Google's competitors which is not the same thing.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  38. A monopoly for a market that doesn't exist yet! by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    60% of you will underestimate this.
    20% of you will misunderstand this.
    10% of you might believe it.
    10% of you will totally get this.

    The next step in 'Internet advertising' doesn't exist yet, and doesn't directly center around the web browser and web pages. There is a real integration of three technologies that is coming around the corner, and Google is far ahead of the game than any other player. In fact, most of the other players don't even know the game exists.

    What is this magic combo?
    Cellular Data [real time, anyplace, data transport to a computing device] +
    Internet [not web pages, but providers of location based services (Google)] +
    GPS [one of the new key data fields that everything will hinge upon]

    "But we already have those things today!" "This is nothing new!" "My phone currently does all three!"

    Yes. Those are three discrete services that your phone may have. But are they INTEGRATED?

    New world example:

    You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.

    Quite a number of nearby locations pop up on your map. But there are a few bolded map selections. Arby's has free desert with any meal purchase. Bill & Ruth's sub shop has a discount of $1 towards any sandwich. And some small pizza place you never heard of has a 2-for-1 special. And then there are quite a number of other choices.

    How did those bolded deals get there? Some large company built up the infrastructure required to run a service where any advertiser (major corporation or little mom-and-pop shops) could put in advertisements at a local level. They've got the transaction engine necessary to take and bill for advertisements. (That would be an existing online advertising company.) They've got the scale to do this on a nationwide (or even worldwide) basis. They've got a yellow pages database. They've got a way to deliver this to consumers.

    Who has something like this today? The only things close that I've found are Yahoo! Local, and our friend Google.

    Google doesn't have all the pieces yet. But they're assembling them. Adsense is going to start allowing location based advertising. (I wish I kept my reference for that.) They're working on an integrated delivery platform to get that to you (Gphone). They practically have all the pieces in place, and they're working towards the goal of making this happen.

    Now, DoubleClick is a major online advertising company. They could be competition to Google in this future world. But, if Google absorbs DoubleClick before the market even exists, then they can avoid the whole monopoly issue. So Google isn't just playing for the here and now, but they're playing for the future in advertising. Nobody else (such as local telephone companies which maintain their own yellow pages) will be in a position to compete (because they lack everything needed to gather the ads nationwide, and they lack everything needed to present the ads, except for some ownership of the mobile devices). Which... of course... Google managed to take away their walled garden when it comes to the mobile devices allowed on the next generation wireless networks.

    And Google totally has this figured out. Hello? Google Maps? Want to know what the business looks like that you're heading for? Google street view. Google is totally lining all of its ducks in a row to corner this new market.

    DoubleClick

  39. Re:Not wrong by kiswa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, Google have the potential to be pretty terrifying - it's not difficult to imagine them having their own platform (via Android and maybe their own linux-based OS), bandwidth (via 700MHz) and complete online experience (search/email/office apps) in 10 years time. And on top of all that, they gather data on just about every action you take within their system. That scares me. I don't want to live in a world where one company controls the entire stack from the applications to the OS to the hardware to the very bandwidth I need.

  40. Re:Whining. by Marcion · · Score: 4, Informative

    The definition of a monopoly is not having 100% of the market. It is having enough (e.g. 25%) to distort the market and unfairly control your supplies or customers, e.g. to make prices rather than to take them, to dictate your own proprietary standards rather than open standards and so on.

    --
    My little Linux and tech blog
  41. Re:Do u read what you write? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >In what way, is MS being bashed?

    In that you are willing to ignore anything that comes out of MS, regardless of what it is about or how logical it is or what its implications are to you/us. Why do you need another company/third party to validate an argument? You believe its right or, you believe its wrong or you don't know yet. You can depend on blindly trusting or not trusting a third-party to supply your opinion, but why wouldn't you just independently think about what is being presented and not involve that level of trust (either way) at all?

    >So, imagine if Google ... That would be illegal. But they do not do that.

    You set up an imaginary situation, (Google has a monopoly. Google is abusing its monopoly) and then look at reality to see what Google's actions are.
    Of course they are not abusing their monopoly because they don't have an monopoly to abuse.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  42. Re:Whining. by Marcion · · Score: 2, Informative

    And monopoly doesn't mean what you think it does. It literally means exclusive control of a market. I know it's cool to be revisionist and claim it means something else, but look it up.

    My first degree was in Economics and I have a big pile of dusty textbooks, I don't need to look it up, but you do - in a real publication. Or look at any government's competition authority, you will see the normal threshold is 25% for them to pay an interest. It is not revisionist, it is the classical definition.

    --
    My little Linux and tech blog
  43. Since when has google used FUD to destroy by NullProg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a competitive product?

    1) Since when has google used a AARD code in a Operating system to instill FUD for a user to purchase an alternate OS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
    2) Since when has google informed a user to remove a competitors program upon installation/upgrade of a new one? http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/12/20/505887.aspx
    3) Since when has google forced install GGA (Google Genuine Advantage) software to frisk and accuse a user of being a thief when their not? http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx
    4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but google has't put yahoo, msn, ask jeeves out of business by bundling their service with computer manufacturers. Computer makers can bundle all or none except when they bundle Windows (Windows Live).

    Microsoft stopped being a software company back in 1991. They are now a an exclusive Windows only monopoly protection company. Just like the contract they signed with (CBS), they are old and busted (MTV).

    Silverlight is a copy of flash (but won't work on my cell phone). .Net is a copy of Java (but doesn't have a native compiler and doesn't work outside of a WinCE phone). Live office is joke compared to Google. My tweens (and their friends) want their computers/cell phones/ipods just to work regardless of the computer. Microsoft doesn't get this.

    Microsoft assumed that they would steal away Ad dollars (UK Pounds, French EU etc) from google by being Microsoft. They don't understand yet that the Microsoft brand name is tainted and means squat for most of the world. Their not Coco-Cola for sure. They have brand recognition for being un-secure, BSOD, RROD (xbox360), and greedy.

    In the USA a Microsoft ex-attorney is allowed to be head of the Microsoft DOJ oversight commission (Government). Hopefully the EU wont have a Microsoft employee overseeing their Microsoft anti-trust suit (Anyone can be bought by a company with ill-gotten $40 billion in the bank.

    Microsoft is not evil. Just greedy. They forgot about making computer software thats simple and easy (Apple). Somehow they forgot that they were computer programmers, not Windows programmers.

    Enjoy,

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.