Slashdot Mirror
Google Says Microsoft Is Driving Antitrust Review
GovTechGuy writes "On Friday we discussed news that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott opened a probe into whether Google ranks its search listings with an eye toward nicking the competition. Google suggested the concerns have a major sponsor: Microsoft. In question is whether the world's biggest search engine could be unfairly disadvantaging some companies by giving them a low ranking in free search listings and in paid ads that appear at the top of the page. That could make it tough for users to find those sites and might violate antitrust laws. Abbott's office asked for information about three companies who have publicly complained about Google, according to blog post by Don Harrison, the company's deputy general counsel. Harrison linked each of the companies to Microsoft."
But Google's search algorithm is published -- there's even a helpful book about it, Amy Langville's "PageRank and beyond" which demonstrates that it's no more complicated than the linear algebra you learned in your sophomore year of engineering school.
When I Google "Bing" - you're first in the list of results. And second, and fourth....
Of course that unfairly disadvantages Bing Crosby. But he's dead. Just like Windows Live Search.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Um .. it's a free service - if you don't like it use something else!
Once again Microsoft chooses to litigate instead of innovate. I guess Bing didn't crush Google quite as firmly as Microsoft hoped so they had to find proxies to launch baseless legal attacks until they think of something else. The technology landscape would be vastly improved if Microsoft would just dissolve and go away.
MicroSoft would never stoop to such a dirty trick. They have a long history of being open and above board in all business dealings. Just look how well they've treated the open source community over the years.
* Foundem -- the British price comparison site that is backed by ICOMP, an organization funded largely by Microsoft. They claim that Google’s algorithms demote their site because they are a direct competitor to our search engine. The reality is that we don’t discriminate against competitors. Indeed, companies like Amazon, Shopping.com and Expedia typically rank very high in our results because of the quality of the service they offer users. Various experts have taken a closer look at the quality of Foundem’s website, and New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann concluded, “I want Google to be able to rank them poorly.”
* SourceTool/TradeComet - SourceTool is a website run by parent company TradeComet, whose private antitrust lawsuit against Google was dismissed by a federal judge earlier this year. The media have noted that TradeComet is represented by longtime Microsoft antitrust attorneys, and independent search experts have called SourceTool a “click arbitrage” site with little original content.
* myTriggers - Another site represented by Microsoft’s antitrust attorneys, myTriggers alleges that they suffered a drop in traffic because Google reduced their ad quality ratings. But recent filings have revealed that the company’s own servers overheated, explaining their reduced traffic.
[citation needed]
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html etc
I've dealt with Greg Abbott and the rest of the Texas legal system. The Texas court system is so obviously "Justice for those who can pay for it" and Greg Abbott personally only responds to things that will give him good PR or more money flowing to him that I'm surprised there hasn't been a probe. Google is the financial jackpot.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
This is a non-issue. People use google.com's website of their own volition. The search results come from Google's database, there is no hindering of businesses or anti-trust issue here at all since all of the information gleaned on the internet is already present. Google merely presents it how they deem necessary to match the search keywords.
TL;DR: Fuck off.
user@host$ diff
Try finding three major tech companies that aren't linked with Microsoft in some way.
And when the link is "the lawyers hired by TradeComet include some of the same lawyers Microsoft hired to do similar work in the past" and you're getting pretty close to playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon".
If there's a smoking gun somewhere, this ain't it. If this is the best Google's general counsel can do, maybe there isn't a smoking gun anywhere.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Can someone please explain this to me? What company or website am I searching for on google.com where searching for them does not bring up their website?
When you search for "Macaroni" what macaroni making company's website is ranked first among the many returned? If Google has overwhelming influence on the search market and they change their rankings so that it is a macaroni making company not owned by a company they compete with in another market, then that's against the law. It seems unlikely that is the case in any market, but hopefully the courts will determine the truth of the matter.
I think you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft is actually flamingly guilty of such antitrust. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that if someone accuses a person of rape, who actually in fact commited said rape, then it is a case of "fair is fair" if the rapist then accuses you of raping them.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The basic idea behind PageRank may be published, but there is a lot more to do with it, such as all the logic for detecting link farms and other forms of intentional manipulation, which Google does not make public.
There is also a ton of logic behind trying to determine in a page what is "important," and that comes down to parsing html and making inferences as to what is the "main part", what is a heading, and so on. And then there is logic for determining what is duplicate content....again a very complex problem. The list goes on. If you think this is simple or straightforward, I'd say you are highly mistaken.
These aren't comparable, in this case Microsoft is backing lawsuits with their own resources, your linked blog post is about their comment on the matter since they now had experience in the the browser market. Google didn't bring fourth any of the antitrust lawsuits or back them up of support them with their resources. And quoted from the blog "Google's perspective will be useful as the European Commission evaluates remedies to improve the user experience" meaning they will give their comment to the EC in an already in progress discussion on the Internet Explorer browser and it's integration in Windows.
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
Okay true. But in this case, what is being claimed is simply not likely to be true. While I trust google about as far as I can throw it (let it be known and repeated that I distrust ALL marketing/advertising companies) the claims against it are inconsistent with even the most casual observations.
The antitrust claims against Microsoft, on the other hand, were quite valid. And, as it turns out, the remedies against Microsoft were clearly not enough as they haven't yet changed their ways fully. (For example, OEM version of Microsoft Office is mysteriously cheaper when purchased through Dell than when purchased through other sources... perhaps this is "Dell's doing" but then again, to what advantage is it to offer MS Office at a perceived discount? Certainly not the user who doesn't get MS Office and still has to pay a partial price for it as that portion of the cost is rolled into the price of the computer.) And I am sure there are lots more examples of the games they play, but it's close to my bed time and the mind is shutting down.
I'm neither a Google fan nor one of Microsoft. But as someone from the outside, objectively I can't see where the case has merit and it just smells like more of Microsoft's dirty play. After all, this is not the first time we have heard of Microsoft's agenda being pushed by its partners and affiliates.
The lesson they took away from the antitrust trial was "Antitrust is a way for competitors to use the government to interfere with your business." not "We were being evil and wrong and got into trouble for it.". The wrong lesson. They got off way too lightly and too many people were sympathetic.
Since they took that lesson away, now they think they can do the same thing to Google. They might be right, but I hope not. Though if their allegation has merit (which I strongly suspect it doesn't) I will stop trusting Google and be pretty angry at them.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Got a citation for that? Everything I see says otherwise, for instance this.
sure do. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100904101642564
note that it shows a: the antitrust links and b: why anyone can make a google search engine by their own choice
Really, why should google ever publish the "how we do our job"? that's not their job, and it's not microsoft, and it's not anyone's.
Dave Heiner, Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel. You're looking for Paragraph 6 if the whole thing is TL;DR. Completely admits they've been behind some of these hijinks at the DOJ and the European Commission, and so on.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
[citation needed]
Too often this means [google search needed] *cough*
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Wow, you really need to go to school or at least read up on the subject. Government antitrust laws are the only reason why we have any free market left. Adam Smith himself was very clear that antitrust regulation was necessary for a free market to exist. In a free market without such regulation you ultimately end up with a single source monopoly over absolutely every item you can buy or sell. It takes a while, but it does eventually happen as it's not in any suppliers interest to have to compete with anybody else. It's usually more profitable to sell out for a hefty fee and a percentage than to see the profits going down the drain as buyers get to haggle.
That is stupid. Antitrust is not about your competitors complaining about you. Antitrust is when you are so economically powerful that you can destroy the free market and create a situation in which you economically destroy anybody who competes with you.
'What goes around comes around.' reveals a mindset in which antitrust is all part of the normal give-and-take of companies competing against each other. It isn't. Somebody has to engage in a specific set of behaviors deemed anticompetitive for it to be considered an antitrust problem. It's a market distortion, and companies accused of it aren't playing by rules in which capitalism can function properly.
It's possible this accusation against Google is true. But I suspect it's just smoke. If it is true, I will consider Google to have done something truly evil and deserving of this investigation. And it will not be a case of 'what goes around comes around'. It will be a case of a company doing something wrong that should be punished severely.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Nobody can dictate to you what the output should be when someone connects a browser to your server (or cloud) to retrieve a form, types something into a field and hits submit.
End of story.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100904101642564
Or did they break the story?
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Sorry man but you can't have it both ways.
Nice straw man you have there - he burns really well!
You can't say "It would be ok for Google to become a monopoly and throw their weight around as such, but not for MS."
Nobody is saying that - and as you so beautifully point out, Google isn't a monopoly. So trying to compare them to Microsoft is disingenuous at best.
Nice try though.
The following two aspects of Bing are superior:
Its ability to find porn in the video search is better than Google.
The way the roads are drawn on maps are a bit easier to read than Google (but Yahoo is better still).
Honorable mention: the new version of Google Images brings it almost down to Bing's level.
Standard Oil was a monopoly because it was not better than its competition but rather relied on the government to fuel its practices
Petroleum derivatives had a well-earned reputation for being both unpredictable and lethal.
Rockefeller delivered a retail product based on standard formulations and sold in honest weights and measures. "Standard Oil" was trusted.
"Standard Oil" was cheap.
The kerosene that cost 58 cents in 1865 cost 26 cents in 1870. Standard Oil
None too surprisingly, perhaps, the Standard's customers tended to remain loyal to the Standard's operating companies after the break-up. They pospered as would Rockefeller himself.
There would be opportunities for others, but only for the big boys, vertically integrated like the Standard itself.
All those searches from Microsoft.com for "Google Anti-trust violations"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Assuming this is true, so what? Google has tried to get regulator's onto Microsoft's ass. What's wrong with Microsoft returning the favor?
Does anyone else use use Google to search for something thats on a MS website? I mean, their search on their own site is so horrible in finding what I'm looking for that I use google. I can't be the only person that does this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yet, claiming that Android is by far the most open Smartphone OS is just plain false. Ever heard of:
OpenMoko
Maemo
MeeGo
- all of which allow anyone to write apps in any language available, because unlike Android they are mostly using linux' own standard interfaces. In some cases "porting" would simply mean recompiling or even just copying the app over, whereas under Android you'd most certainly have to rewrite it from scratch to conform with Android's requirements and still need to worry about compatibility issues between Android versions. This makes all three of them in effect far more open than Android OS.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Microsoft is not a person.
What they are though, is an organisation that has repeatedly attacked competitors via proxy - Sco, attempting to sell Linux-relevant patents to trolls, stacking ISO to block ODF, etc, etc.
This effort though, seems too minor and too transparently fallacious to be a direct attack on Google. It's more likley they are furthering another agenda - perhaps establishing precedednt for their own actions.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Search 'search engines' on Bing. Google doesn't even make the first page. Although it's picture is used to define what a search engine is. lol Yeah that's an unbiased search. Search the same on Google and Bing is listed second.
Even more obvious is the fact that Google doesn't have a monopoly on search engines. Obviously, Microsoft has a search engine of their own, which they have invested a lot of money into. Don't like Google, for any reason? Just use another engine: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/ There is little reason for you to believe that list is truly "comprehensive", either. What does China have? Badu? It's not on that list. Seems ALL those search engines are English language, North American engines, so if you are fluent in some other language, you probably have even MORE choices. The fact that Google is the best for MY needs shouldn't influence people who dislike or distrust Google. They are NOT the only game in town. For Google to violate anti-trust and/or anti-monopoly laws, I believe that it must be established that they ARE a monopoly. I just can't see that. Of course, we are all aware that trials and judges can be bought, I think. Witness all the patent trolls, as well as actions brought by RIAA, MPAA, and others.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
MS is just upset that when they used the desktop monopoly to gain an advantage in search by making Bing the default search engine in IE it didn't work so now they're just going to try and use the courts to give their shitty search an advantage.
It is true that Google downranks or delists pages that they deem to be "spammers".
These spammer / SEO folks would very much like Google to be forced to not filter their sites out of search results or be allowed to adjust their algorithms to downrank them.
It would hurt Google and google users if Google were not allowed to do this.
It would also ultimately hurt all search engines, except ones that are protected by being the default.
As there would no longer be a reason to prefer Google or any other search engine (they would always be full of spam, and typing any 'search' would just get a bunch of keyword spammers and SEO pages on the 1st 10 pages of search results.)
....of dealing in the dark arts (i.e the hidden hand behind a case like this). I guess Google are too big to be that scared.
Charging whitebox PC vendors for MS OSes on every box they sell regardless of what OS actually ships on a given PC, so that the whitebox vendors can't afford to preload anyone else's (for example IBM's) OS is kind of an attack by proxy. They were bullying the PC vendors to fight IBM for them.
Indeed. As long as Dell continue to offer a wide range of Linux system as well as Microsoft Windows PCs then I cannot see anything suspicious about getting cheap access to Microsoft products. I have not seen their web site for a while, but I cannot see why they wouldn't offer just as many Linux products as Microsoft as the operating system is simply a cost to drive the hardware part of their business.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France