Slashdot Log In
Microsoft May Be Investigated By Attorneys General
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 12, 2007 08:22 AM
from the perhaps-they-should-hire-lawyers dept.
from the perhaps-they-should-hire-lawyers dept.
Null Nihils writes "Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has announced that a group of state attorneys general will decide later this week whether to pursue legal action against Microsoft over allegations of anticompetitive conduct that were brought on by Google. From the article: 'Google has complained that Microsoft's new operating system puts it, and other rivals, at a disadvantage. Google said that Vista makes it harder for consumers to use non-Microsoft versions of a desktop search function, which enables users to search the contents of their hard drives. A group of state attorneys general including Connecticut and California is now determining how to react to the claims made by Google.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Justice Dept. Defends Microsoft Against Google 329 comments
Frosty Piss writes "The Seattle PI reports that Google has complained to US antitrust officials about the hard-drive searching tool built into Windows Vista, saying that it stymies Google's similar search program. The complaint, lodged late last year, was revealed Saturday by The New York Times in a story about the Bush administration's handling of Microsoft antitrust issues. The real story, though, is not the Google complaint itself, but how the Justice Department is failing to enforce the Microsoft anti-trust decree. According to the story, Thomas Barnett, the assistant U.S. attorney general in charge of antitrust issues, sent a memo last month to state attorneys general across the nation, seeking to persuade them to reject Google's complaint."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
what's the bet that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what's the bet that (Score:5, Informative)
1) They complained to the DoJ/AG without informing Microsoft of the issue and attempting to have it solved,
2) Windows Search is designed to only operate during idle cycles specifically so it will not interfere with any other running program including Google Desktop Search,
4) Windows Search can be disabled from the Control Panel, the command line, and if Google could be bothered they can disable it using the Services API during an install of their software, and
5) Google have even coded Vista Sidebar widgets that are designed to interact with GDS on Vista, which makes their complaint make even less sense.
I'm sorry to hijack your comment but if anybody else could manage to be a little more informed on the issue rather than immediately jump to the standard "anti-competitive monopoly blah-blah" response then maybe a more intellectual debate could ensue.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what's the bet that (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me that Google is trying to beat Microsoft at its own game. Unfortunately, I have my doubts about Google being able to pull it off. Especially since it would require quite a bit of Evil(TM).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Mexico we have a saying that goes:
"El enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo" and means something like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". I guess that if Google is "Evil(TM)" against Microsoft I would not cry a bit or be sad for that matter. The problem I see is that once Google is evil against MS and the sh
Unfair standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:5, Informative)
Writing 100% bulletproof applications in the real-world (especially given customer and consumer expectations) is next to impossible, not unless you were doing small and simple things and you've enormous amount of time and money at your disposal. No matter how much you test and secure your system or how bulletproof you make it, there is almost always a point where usability versus security becomes an issue, or compatibility versus security becomes an issue.
There was a time when Microsoft's products were riddled with security flaws, but over the years, their platforms and offerings have stabilized considerably. If anything, for the amount of complex stuff that they write, their security flaws are hardly a surprise.
I mean, sure, you can have something like OpenBSD, but just how usable do you think such a system would be? Consider the kernel, the UI, the file system, assorted applications (browser, office applications) etc. and you'd begin to see how hard it becomes to keep the system locked tight with that level of complexity (not to mention scalability).
I know that it's all fun to bash Microsoft on Slashdot and all that, but sometimes I just wish that people would just get a grip on reality, not their ideal, tiny little world.
Parent
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true. So Microsoft should stop lying and claiming to always use proper bounds-checking string routines when they clearly do not, as they create so very many buffer overflows, and they should stop claiming that they have the most secure OS, et cetera.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, for the amount of complex stuff that they write, their security flaws are hardly a surprise.
The anti-competitive cases are usually about getting Microsoft to focus on their core functionality, like the security of the operating system, rather than write up stupid little weather bug clones for the desktop. Get M$ out of browser space, out of desktop search, get them to quit trying to own everything the user touches and quit using their monopoly status to ship this crap that snuffs out any market emerging on the desktop.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
What gives complaints against MSFT legitimacy is that it has 1. monopoly in the OS marke. 2. It has used its monopoly to unfairly undermine its competitors in other markers. MSFT can easily get out of all these restrictions and actions by breaking the company into two pieces. One is the OS company and the other is the applications company. And the OS company will give equal access to all vendors in the applications arena.
Please understand the issue is not the quantum of access given to the OS. It is the unequal access given to other vendors.
Parent
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now how far should the automaker go? Should you be able to install a thirdparty glove box? A steering wheel? or a gear box and transmission? The automobile is quite tangible and most consumers are well informed and they vote with their dollars in these questions. If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it. It is possible the glove box (and possibly the windshield) was thirdparty add-on way back in 1910s. And eventually it got incorporated into the automobile.
But in the computer arena, the public is not well informed. It would take a generation of kids who grew up with computers all their life to distinguish between what is the "glove box" and what is a "tire" in a computer. At that point we might not need any legislative action. But right now, to preseve the endangered species of independent software developers and application developers we need some basic action from the courts/legislation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, the marketplace is doiminated by Ford. That's the whole gist of the problem.
It has nothing to do with public education, it has to do with the inability of a market to operate more-or-less freely, due to domination of one sector by one firm (Microsoft, in this case).
I understand what you're getting at -- defining what is peripheral (like the tires) and defining what is intrinsic to the product (like the gl
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fully documeneted and open APIs. Documented and open protocols. Documented and open file formats. They're required by the terms of their prosecution in the European Union to provide this documentation and keep refusing. The US department of Justice has asked them to provide the protocols to potential competitors.
Microsoft has repeatedly refused to comply properly with these legal requirements. The answer to your question is simple. Microsoft should do what lawmakers have been telling them to do for years. Provide potential competitors with enough information to interoperate with the OS as effectively as MS themselves.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you have a windows company A that can only sell windows and windows server edition.
And you have windows company B that can sell IIS, XBOX, MS Word, MS Office, MS mouse, Visual Studio... but not windows.
The idea is that windows could include IE but if Microsoft is not selling IIS the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:5, Informative)
So if you want to do searches in your email and also use google desktop search you are in trouble since both search engine now have to be running and scanning everything.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And people are STILL believing this bullshit?
Google can install, and set itself as the default search engine that works inside Outlook, the Desktop, OneNote, etc. There are clear APIs that Google can use on both sides to hook into the application. Google can also TURN OFF THE MS SEARCH ENGINE COMPLETELY.
Google is pissing on the intelligenc
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a way, Google's complaint mirrors that of Netscape but instead of browsers, it's search applications.
Parent
Who's competing who? (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly.
In the Netscape case, they had an established product, then MS started to compete. In this case, Vista (originally Longhorn) had a powerful search functionality built in since it's inception. (2001) In fact that was one of the first features that was announced about Vista. Even Windows 2000 and above had text search indexing (indexing service) integrated, although it's not as powerful as the i
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever notice how the really secure systems (*BSD, Solaris, etc) have every line of code public?
PS. It's spelled "kernel".
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations
UNIX was code-visible (not Free Software or Open Source) from the time of release. It was not taken seriously as a secure platform until a good twenty years after it was first launched. Even more modern releases have had their share of security problems. The number of security holes that were fixed by Theo De Raadt and friends in between forking NetBSD and releasing the first version of OpenBSD are staggering.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Dupe & Duplicity (Score:5, Informative)
Have Google actually deigned to comment on the issue yet? Last time I checked they were shunning any reasonable debate on the matter.
Which means... (Score:4, Interesting)
This can only mean:
- or -
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-or more likely-
The anti-trust division of the DOJ is run by libertarian free-market zealots who have no problem disregarding the law to further their own ideology.
It's MS OS (Score:4, Interesting)
If Chrysler decided to design a car that worked better with specific parts, who would complain. If MS designs their OS so their desktop search works better, great. If Google really wants to be a competitor let them spend all that evil filthy lucre they've amassed and build thier own stinking OS that they can lock MS out of.
Difference: monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
If Chrysler decided to design a car that worked better with specific parts, who would complain. If MS designs their OS so their desktop search works better, great. If Google really wants to be a competitor let them spend all that evil filthy lucre they've amassed and build thier own stinking OS that they can lock MS out of.
Did Chrysler increase their market share by 90% last night? If not, the difference between Chrysler and MS is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist with a very high marketshare of desktop computers while Chrysler is a small player in the US auto market. This means that MS is subject to laws and rules that, in general, Chrysler is not. One of them is leveraging their market share in one market (operating systems) into others (search tools, browsers, etc). If MS is using anticompetitive tactics to render Google's products less capable of working with MS's operating system, to MS's advantage, that could be illegal.
Note that if Chrysler made 95% of the cars on the road, and Chrysler intentionally restricted their cars so that they would only work with Chrysler-blessed stereos, that would be illegal as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like Google tools as much as the next guy, and generally distrust MS... but.. it's a file search. Searching files is something an operating system does.
I can only imagine Google's crying if MS had left their new queryable file system in place.
Wrong issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it any easier to replace Apple's search? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it (Score:3, Insightful)
A curious clue to contemporary American thought patterns?
I don't understand the complaint (Score:4, Insightful)
Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that this case doesn't get taken to the heights of Microsoft's anti-trust suits did because it's really not worth it...
Mac OS X includes desktop-wide search functions. I am not sure as to how difficult they are to "turn off," but it comes with the OS to provide ease of use for the user instead of having to find third-party utilities to do the same job as Windows users of the past have had to.
Now, Microsoft decides to include desktop searching functions as well. If I am not mistaken, these functions can be turned off, but that does not matter. Google is then planning to sue Microsoft for unfair competition because their Desktop Search Application is no longer useful?
If Google's primary argument in this case is that the integrated desktop search is too difficult to turn off, they better have pretty good lawyesr that can establish a clear and persuasive definition of what it means to "turn off" something. I'm pretty sure that if Google truly wanted to, they could establish an option within their own program (or set a default option) to turn off the Windows searching mechanism. There are also plenty of instructions that could be written to turn off the searching ability. I could go on with this, but the point here is that this main argument is a weak one that will get them nowhere even before the gavel hits the desk.
Google has a ton of applications that are universally useful; why must they target something that MIcrosoft finally got right?
Where does the OS begin? (Score:3, Funny)
Google turning evil (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want google or yahoo or anyone else searching my hard drive.
We have seen this before (Score:4, Insightful)
2) MS taken to court by the states.
3) Federal government takes case away from states claiming federal jurisdiction. Then drops antitrust case due to pressure from executive branch.
4) MS Profits!
I guess we can drop the ??? on this one.
RTFOAs (Score:4, Insightful)
While the article posted doesn't necessarily make it entirely clear what Google is complaining about, I had the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just that a search function existed in Vista, as there has always been. So take a look at some other articles if you really want to know what the complaint is about. I found this [axcessnews.com]:
Google should STFU (Score:3, Interesting)
Google are the ones who make a Windows-only product - why are they complaining now? It is the same story every time: they strengthen the Windows franchise and then complain that Microsoft has an unfair advantage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Political Tactic:nothing more. (Score:4, Interesting)
Blumenthal is using a tactic that another famous Connecticut Attorney General used to create a political career from a position (AG) that's not usually very visible. He went after the insurance companies, cut some half-assed deals that looked like they helped the consumer, made himself look like a hero to the little guy and then ran for Democratic Senator of CT and has never left - one close call last year. Yes, it's Joe Lieberman.
Blumenthal is just using the same tactic on a different industry (ies) 30 years later. I guarantee you, Blumenthal will be running for Governor, Senator, or something in the near future and these investigations are nothing but ways to raise his name recognition among the public.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because you can easily replace them? Because Microsoft hasn't limited the ability to run other programs, such as Putty?
Why isn't Google complaining about Linux's find?
Because the GNU/Linux developers haven't intentionally hobbled Google's ability to write a search system for GNU/Linux?
Apple is far more anti-competitive than MS? Why doesn't anyone hassle them?
Uhm... how do you mean? Is Apple in a dominant position, and capab
Are you aware that Google is lying? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft hasn't "intentionally hobbled" GDS!
It's very easy to turn off Vista search indexing. There is an API to use for Google itself!
Google is lying.
Anti-trust (Score:3, Interesting)
It's simple, really. A free market is only "free" inasmuch as the consumer is in control. That is, as long as the old middle-school "supply-and-demand, build-a-better-mousetrap" balance is maintained, you have a more-or-less free market.
It has been noted throughout history that when on company achieves a stranglehold on a market, there is no competition. Corporate control of a market is much more sure than government control of a market, b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This whole flap isn't about Microsoft merely including products in Vista. It's about them including their products in Vista and also locking Vista down to use only Microsoft's products for certain purposes even when Microsoft themselves provide and use an API specifically designed to allow for seamless substitution of service providers. It's as if Microsoft let you install any word processing software you wanted but no matter what settings you changed or what you told the system, double-clicking on a docume