Google Calls For More Limits On Microsoft 270
teh_commodore writes "Scientific American is reporting that Google is now asking a Federal judge to extend the government's anti-trust oversight of Microsoft, specifically with regard to desktop search software. Microsoft had already agreed to modify Vista to allow rival desktop search engines, but Google says that this remedy will come too late — specifically, after (most of) the anti-trust agreement expires in November. What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice and US state regulators, who had found Microsoft's compromise acceptable, to appeal directly to the Federal judge overseeing the anti-trust settlement." Update: 06/26 17:20 GMT by KD : The judge is unwilling to play along with Google; she said she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the case: i.e. Justice and the states.
Ahhh, now you know why it sucks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
They had better. The consent decree expires in November. If that means what I think it means, Vista is going to suck life more obviously than it already does. It's like they've ignored the consent decree, even while it's in effect. Normal people are unable to think of what M$ will do next.
Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (Score:4, Interesting)
So is using your large companies power for the greater good doing (or being) evil?
I don't really think so...
Marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
But it brings into focus a new corporate strategy... the use of regulation over competition. Asking for regulation is against the traditional American business philosophy, which typically favours deregulation.
This could play out in favour of Microsoft who will likely ask that Google get regulated more heavily, which will result in some interesting news for the world, to come. And yes, I know something you don't.
"Flamebait"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which part of the consent decree? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a little out of the loop, but I just read through the final [amended] consent decree against Microsoft on the DOJ website. Can someone in the know point out what clause Google is claiming is being violated? I haven't seen it directly mentioned in any story posted yet.
I mean, the main problems addressed in the consent decree were twofold: 1) Microsoft was illegally leveraging OEMs for positioning, and 2) Microsoft was illegally leveraging it's "Middleware" market by including standalone products (such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc) in its Windows OS.
What's Google's ground, legally, for their complaint? According to the consent decree, the term "Middleware" was defined, basically, as either "IE, Java, Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express" or "browsers, email clients, networked audio/video software, instant messaging software" or "any functionality provided by Microsoft software that is distributed separately within a year preceding a new commercial Windows release which is similar to a non-Microsoft middleware product".
That being the case, did Microsoft ever release the Instant Search option as a separate download from any Windows OS? I can't think of any time they ever did that to my recollection. In fact, as someone else pointed out, searching is not only integral to the file systems of an OS, but it's been included in Windows from quite a ways back (if not as efficiently as it currently is implemented in Vista.)
Just curious....
LondovirRe:It all depends what "evil" is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it the DOJ's job to monitor MS?
Whatever. Google is just trying to survive and has a right to be worried. How can you compete with every desktop on earth? People use whats on their computers and whether its good or not it becomes standard. No one can unseat Microsoft as a result and its illegal under the sherman anti trust laws.
As it is state courts are taking up sides agaisnt MS since the federal government is very pro ms due to bribes.
Re:I must be missing the basic principles somehow (Score:1, Interesting)
a) Apple/Google release desktop search for Mac/Windoze in some order.
b) MS then introduces desktop search
c) MS then scuttles the ability to install alternate desktop searches
d) Google cries fowl
e) MS then backs down under the threat of lawsuites, not from the fed but from state govts.
f) Google realizes that MS will release the "patch" only in Dec'07 when the antitrust decree expires in Nov'07. So if MS promises and releases some really shitty patch that requires ppl to lets say, reinstall the OS and call MS and provide your SSN to get a special authorization code so that the desktop search can be replaced, Google is screwed.
g) Google petitions the court to extend the decree until MS patch is released.
Not sure what the fuss here is allabout...it's basic CYA by Google --- not that I'm rooting for them anyways. And symantec did the same thing
Re:Google huh... (Score:1, Interesting)
Most operating systems designed after about 1990 have some kind of built in HTML viewer component, and most of them would break if it were removed. In the Windows case, it's called MSHTML.DLL and is used all over the place from the shell to the html help control. So you're free to install Opera or Firefox, but you can't get rid of MSHTML.DLL since lots of other places rely on being able to host it.
Now most GUI operating systems have a default text editor component, which is similarly ubiquitous. In Windows that would be the EDIT window class. If you're replying to this using Internet Explorer, you're actually using both MSHTML.DLL and and EDIT window. Once a bundled component provides some functionality, other applications will tend to use it rather than reinventing it. So the built in Notepad and Internet Explorer are both just very thin wrappers around an EDIT control and MSHTML.DLL.
Now what's interesting here is that both the MSHTML.DLL and the EDIT are a bit old fashioned. This is inevitable with bundled components because in addition to running inside Internet Explorer or Notepad they are hosted inside lots of Windows components or even inside third party applications. Anyone who's used either for more than a few minutes will want to get something a bit more capable.
But for some reason, including Internet Explorer is a ploy designed to kill Netscape whereas including Notepad is fine. For example, I don't see the makers of CodeWright or UltraEdit or Emacs complain that including EDIT or Notepad is somehow designed to kill them.
YRO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google huh... (Score:1, Interesting)
WTF?!?! No, seriously What the F*ck are you trying to say? Charlie Manson isn't the vicious murderer we know him to be? Or what? They've change? is the new kool-aid slogan "Vista - because we're good people", I really am not wrapping my head around this. I understand what you are trying to say, but a more than cursory glance at Microsoft's history shows a very definable pattern of abuse that has not gone away. Patent deals anyone? Fuckin' shill, for real, you're on the clock right?
I'm evil and curious - view from beyond the bubble (Score:2, Interesting)
This gave me the opportunity to give Vista a try out before a reinstall of Linux, which now isn't going to happen without some changes (more targetted exploits for example). Only mistake I think MS made with Vista was to allow the new security features (UAC etc.) to be turned off by the user (leaving the 'pretty XP' arguement people keep making), although I've got to ask: wtf is up with the 'show text' option for password fields? sheer madness....
With regard to search, unless I'm mistaken Windows has had a search feature since forever (win3.1 I think, possibly earlier I'm not that old
In regards to the fairness arguement, why should MS have to give fair access to THEIR software to a competitor?
Now I know this is
Re:Ahhh, now you know why it sucks. (Score:4, Interesting)