Microsoft May Be Investigated By Attorneys General 260
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.'"
Which means... (Score:4, Interesting)
This can only mean:
- or -
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
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.
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.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a way, Google's complaint mirrors that of Netscape but instead of browsers, it's search applications.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, it's hard to argue that Windows shouldn't provide an indexing service when OSX etc do. It's pretty well documented too, API-wise -- its only problem is that it consumes more resources than Google's indexer.
Google's complaint does seem to be a case of sour grapes here. Perhaps they're simply retaliating for the time when Microsoft raised antitrust complaints about its DoubleClick acquisition?
Re:Unfair standard? (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 then they don't have any reason to care if some is using other tools. So Microsoft can include anything to sell more copies of windows but they have no reason to include things to crush the competition because they can't compete with other non OS companies.
PS: The problem with this is that they would go the Red Hat route and start including basic apps for most things like SSH, FTP, and over time they become the same company but force you to buy Note Pad XL their new crappy word processor.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
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, because a corporation doesn't have to worry about parliamentary procedure, and whatnot. They get to do what they want, when they want, without the facade of transparency and participation required by many governments.
In this case, Microsoft has a stranglehold on a market. They have used dirty tricks to maintain their stranglehold, too, such as the deals made with all PC suppliers back in the 90s, or the specific targeting of competing products, such as Lotus 123 and DR-DOS.
Consider this: if Ford purchased up all the gas stations in the US, and modified them so that Chevys couldn't fill up, and made deals with all gas-pump manufacturers and all petroleum companies to sell only to Ford, would Ford's behavior be ethical? Legal? Good for the individual (that is, consumers or citizens, whichever way you like to view yourself)?
Microsoft is in the position of Ford owning all the gas pumps.
Microsoft isn't obligated to make things easier for their competitors. They're obligated to not intentionally make things harder.
Absurd! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides this complaint comes from Google. A company that disregards other people's copyrights and is as anticompetitive as any legit business on the planet. Cry me a river.
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Anti-trust (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem isn't Microsoft, they just serve as a brilliant example. Punishing them accomplishes little except temporarily placating a bunch of narrow minded geeks.. IMO, industry wide collusion between corporations is a much bigger problem and it essentially defines our economy.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what's the bet that (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 shareholders see what can be achieved by being evil, then Google wont be able to stop being evil to continue its stock prices growing (which is what shareholders only care about).
Something similar to what happened to Slashdot after they removed the comments of Scientology, once you do it one time, you can not put a straight face saying "we do not remove any comment"... because any company willingly enough will come and tell you that you already did it once and hence you can do it again.
I believe this issues are one of the few which have a Black or White stand.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
No Microsoft does not deserve any kind of forgiveness for shipping crap, no business does. Yes programming is hard, but that doesn't mean it will never approach something secure. Seriously, complaining that security bugs are just something to live with because it's "too hard" is some of the whiniest crap I've ever heard. Doctors don't say that can't cure cancer, they say they are working on it, it's a matter of professionalism and pride in your trade. You don't leave dirty dishes in the sink because it is too hard to wash them, grow up, demand more, have some damn standards.
I know this is a bit trollish, for that I apologize, but letting this kind of crap slide is ridiculous if the bug is known work on it, if it's a security bug then it takes precedence over others. Don't whine and say it's too hard, it only floats because noobs think computers are magic.
Re:Unfair standard? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Take WINE source
2. Make it Just Work
3. Publish source to Wine That Works
4. Include Binary In Next Platform
Oh, and I have to inform you that Apple happily distributes GCC (it is GPL software, right?) in MacOSX.
Re:what's the bet that (Score:3, Interesting)
We have the same saying here in the states. The only problem is that there is no guarantee that the enemy of your enemy is truly your friend. Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. (Frighteningly, this can occasionally make your enemy a temporary ally.)
In any case, we also have the term "collateral damage". It refers to all the things that may be unintentionally damaged or destroyed by extreme measures. I can guarantee you that the moment Google compromises their "Do No Evil" policy, they will begin to harm their customers. Whether it will be on purpose or by accident is irrelevant. We'll still be just as harmed.
And in case you think that can't happen, just consider how much personal data Google is sitting on. Now imagine that Google escalates their legal war with Microsoft to a point where a judge orders some or all of that data seized. Google's veil of secrecy won't help them when FBI agents knock down their doors and walk away with their servers.
Re:This is fucking retarded. (Score:3, Interesting)
I just downloaded and installed Google Desktop Search on my Vista-based laptop right here, while I was writing this comment. Seems to work just fine. Now, tell me, what's the problem again?
are you refering to this .. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not seriously comparing Google Desktop Search to this:
Click Start, Search, For Files or Folders, on The Internet, Using Microsoft Outlook, For People, MORE, Look for Files or Folders Named, Containing Text", Look In, My Documents, Desktop, My Computer, Local Hard Drives , Browse !!!!!
It's just a repeat of what they did with Internet Explorer/Netscape and Real Player/Media Player [theregister.co.uk]. There's no technical reason Google Search and MS search can co-exist on the desktop, but that ain't the way it's going to be. Makes itself the default [nwsource.com] search engine that can't be turned off?
was Re:Desktop search was always there