Print - Google Pursuing Frivolous Microsoft Antitrust Charge

According to a report in the "New York Times" on Sunday, Internet search giant Google has levied an antitrust charge against Microsoft, but the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has declined to pursue the case. The report is notable for several reasons. First, as noted by the "New York Times," the DOJ has clearly changed its tune regarding Microsoft antitrust problems: Now, the agency is defending, not pursuing, the software giant. Second, as also noted by the "New York Times," the DOJ and the Federal District Court overseeing Microsoft's ongoing antitrust consent decree, have gone so far as to keep this most recent complaint a secret. But the third and most important point seems to be completely lost on the "New York Times": Google's charge is frivolous, baseless, and hypocritical.

Here's what's happening: In the build-up to Windows Vista last year, several companies, including Google, levied antitrust charges at Microsoft in the United States, the European Union, and other regions, hoping to force Microsoft to change various aspects of the then-upcoming OS. Microsoft actually made several concessions without requiring antitrust officials to step in. And although Microsoft didn't go to the full length that Google had demanded, the software giant did make changes to the way that its Internet Explorer (IE) 7.0 Web browser handles search engines.

Apparently, that wasn't Google's only complaint about Vista. According to the "New York Times" report, Google separately and secretly complained to antitrust officials that Vista's integrated search feature actually caused Google's desktop search product to perform more slowly. The charge, in short, is that Microsoft specifically designed Vista to discourage users from using Google's (suddenly redundant) desktop search product. (Heads-up for history fans: Microsoft announced its plans to add instant desktop search to Vista well before Google ever announced or released a desktop search product of its own.)

This charge raises some interesting problems. First, why did the DOJ and Federal District Court keep this allegation a secret? Second, the "New York Times" reports that the DOJ actually tried to coerce various US states into ignoring Google's allegation, as it was doing, in a sharp turnaround of its previous policy toward Microsoft. Now, prosecutors from several US states say that they will pursue Google's accusation and are asking the DOJ to join them.

They needn't bother: Google's complaint is baseless. To discover why, let's consider how the Microsoft of today is sharply different than the recalcitrant and abusive monopolist that the DOJ first dragged into court several years ago. Back then, Microsoft was found to have illegally changed Windows to harm a would-be competitor, Netscape. That allegation had teeth: Microsoft saw Netscape as an up-and-coming challenger, and although the company at the time posed no immediate risk to Microsoft or Windows, internal Microsoft documentation proved that the software giant saw the impending risk if users adopted the Web, rather than Windows, as the underlying computing platform.

Without really understanding the situation today, one might attempt to draw some comparisons between the Netscape of 1996 and the Google of 2007. After all, both companies create Internet-based products and compete with Microsoft. However, Google is an Internet powerhouse and commands a growing monopoly of its own: The company currently owns about 65 percent of all Internet searches, compared to a lowly 8.46 percent for Microsoft. And its market share is growing steadily, month by month, as its competitors' shares fall, month by month. In fact, one might argue that Google is attempting to extend its own budding monopoly to the PC desktop. Regardless, it's only a matter of time before Google's dominance of the Internet is as vast and secure as Microsoft's command of the desktop. And Google will achieve that in a small fraction of the time it took Microsoft. Unlike Netscape, Google is a company that has the resources to stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft.

If Microsoft were really trying to keep a struggling up-and-coming competitor on the ropes, and was doing so in an illegal fashion, I'd be the first to decry that behavior. Indeed, long-time readers will note that I believed (and still believe) that Microsoft should have been split into two or more companies as a result of its antitrust abuses a decade ago. But today, Microsoft is a different place, and generally behaves in a much more reasonable and competitive fashion. Arguably, the Microsoft of today has done as much to appease Google as the Microsoft of a decade ago did to harm Netscape. Just giving Google's complaint the time of day is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers' money: It is a frivolous allegation.

Ultimately, the only controversy here is that the DOJ sought to keep this charge secret. The agency should have simply revealed the charge and then forgotten it entirely. Maybe it's time to investigate the DOJ, but there's certainly no reason to investigate Microsoft again. I'd go so far as to say that we'll soon have more excuses to investigate Google than Microsoft, given its vast dominance, influence, and ongoing privacy abuses. It's only a matter of time.

The article heading says it all: "Frivolous Microsoft Antitrust charge". The most intersting thing about all this is the obvious bias shown by NY Times. The article has clearly been written by someone who has lotsabiasedstuff against Microsoft. Google is no longer the innocent underdog in this fight.

Oh, and Paul's article is a sterling example of unbiased journalism? Spare me. If it had been labeled "Opinion", it would have been fair (and it *is* an opinion piece--Paul refers to himself in the first person three times). Once again, Paul is the FOX News of the tech world.

"Google is no longer the innocent" really, for an information collection and marketing agency, are they so bad that they need to be reminded on a daily basis to "Do no evil"?! ....i'd bet Google employees would make great used-car salesmen, or as stand-in for Mitt Romney. XP

lotsa, it's one thing for Paul to be biased, and a totally different thing for NY Times to be biased. Newspapers are supposed to report the news (unless it's an op-ed). Paul's the editor of Windows IT Pro magazine and most of his articles can be compared to op-eds. It's fine for Paul to be biased. It's not fine for an NY Times reporter to let his bias become so obvious. You have to understand the difference.

"a totally different thing for NY Times to be biased" not that that's saying much....after all, Pogue wrote a glowing article about the Apple TV. XP

"great article, thanks for sharing it." http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Multimedia_and_Graphics/Video_and_Animation_Tools/Fruit_iPhone_Ripper_Suite .html

Microsoft and Google are both great companies on one side of the coin and abusive on the other side of that coin. Blindly believing the Google "do no evil" rhetoric is as pathetic as the Mac fanatics that would actually bow to Steve Jobs if he entered the room.

The New York Times is so bad I wouldn't even use it to line a bird cage. Tech wise, they have Pogue, who is an Apple shill. Mossberg is just as bad. Google's claims ARE baseless. Just because they might not be the default choice of search provider is like Bill Gates losing a $100 bill. Why does Google get to be the default? Why not ask.com? Why not Yahoo!?

"Why does Google get to be the default?" Google believes they climbed a great mountain to get where they are at, and as such they should be entitled to certain graces by their competitors. I personally see it as an olympic track star getting pushed around in a wheelchair in day-to-day life, but to each his own I suppose.

Google wants to be the de-facto standard of search engines, but they don't value the power of partners. that's where they'll lose, and Microsoft will win out in the end. XP

"Pogue wrote a glowing article about the Apple TV. " Pull your head out of your arse. Pogue's review was hardly "glowing": ------ "All of this works elegantly and effortlessly. But there are lots of unanswered questions ... "For example, it has an Internet connection and a hard drive; why can’t it record TV shows like a TiVo? "Furthermore, it’s a little weird that menus and photos appear in spectacular high-definition, but not TV shows and movies. All iTunes videos are in standard definition, and don’t look so hot on an HDTV. "And then there’s the mysterious unused U.S.B. port. "In the end, these early attempts to bridge the gulf between computer and TV perfectly reinforce the conventional wisdom about Apple: Apple TV offers a gracious, delightful experience — but requires fidelity to Apple’s walled garden. "Its rivals, meanwhile, offer many more features, but they’re piled into bulkier boxes with much less concern for refinement, logic or simplicity. The two-year-old Xbox 360 is far more polished. Like Apple TV, it can either stream photos, music and videos (Windows PCs or, with a $20 shareware program, even Macs) or play them off its hard drive. "Put another way, these machines aren’t direct competitors at all; they’re aimed at different kinds of people. Microsoft’s young male gamers probably couldn’t care less that they can’t change the slide-show speed, and Netgear’s box “is for people who are more experienced,” according to a representative. “This is not for the random person.” " -------- That's fair. Balanced. Honest. Everything you're not, "Waethorn". Maybe that's why you hate Pogue so much.

This just in - every source for news, IT or otherwise, is biased. Paul is biased. The NY Times is biased. Neil Cavuto and Keith Olbermann are biased. I watch and read all of them. Why? Because I find them all a good source for news, and at times entertaining. I double checked, and at no time during this article did Paul say or even imply that he was unbiased. Paul's only "mistake" is that he labels some articles as opinion. Now about the actual subject... This isn't about the default search engine in IE7. It's about the desktop search. Google complains that installing their desktop search program causes Vista to slow down because it has to index for both Google's solution as well as Microsoft's. Google then goes on to state that turning off Microsoft's indexing is impossible. I'm no genius, but I'm not quite sure where Google's coming from on this one. I went to, fittingly, google.com and searched for "disable vista desktop search". First link was to a site with three different options on how to disable indexing, with the third being the best option. (BTW the steps are - Go to the Services control panel, find Windows Search Service, open it and set it to "Disabled".) Seems pretty simple to me. What I don't grok is if Google also wants the same level of integration that the Windows Search Service has. I will plead ignorance here, as I haven't touched Google's desktop search since it's first version, and even then I uninstalled it after about a day. I don't know how Google's desktop search actually behaves in Vista.

So, how many of you are following today's Apple keynote and seeing Leopard totally rape the ancient and backwards-looking Windows Vista? 3D interface is finally here! See you in line for a Mac.

...And so it begins. How did I know bonch would post today? Maybe because of A CERTAIN APPLE KEYNOTE that is going on right now? All the features so far are either direct ripoffs from vista (smart search folders, live previews, "stacks", etc.) or useless eyecandy that will not be used for productive purposes (i.e. coverflow) If this pattern continues, I wouldn't be surprised if in ten years, either (a) you won't be able to tell right off the difference between Windows and OS X or (b) they will merge and everyone will use one OS. Oh, wait, I forgot: Microsoft will be dead in ten years. Nevermind!

I think it's awesome that EA and ID games are devoted to bringing games to Mac now, but Leopard won't be installed on my machine any time soon. $129 for this? No thanks.

Although I may wait until the beta is leaked on to the internet, but so far these appear to be a rehash of Vista features and items already known about.

@Nate It's still better than last year when we got an update every 5 minutes from bonch. I agree that the features that Steve has revealed thus far (at least the ones listed on the CNet blog) are rather uninspiring. Where's all the inovation and leapfrogging?

I guess they saved their "innovation" by bringing Safari to Windows, that'll be a disaster.

Safari's coming to Windows! Finally you guys will get a peek at what it's like living out of the shadows of IE. Awesome!

So... Jobs posted ten "new" features, four of which us Vista users have been using since November - I'm running Vista x64 no problem (except for a usual Creative driver issue). Wow! Two widgets took up an entire feature point. Jobs must be getting desperate. iChat - what every IT Pro needs. I can do app/video sharing over WLM just fine. Sharing a video over a slow DSL line will go slow, no matter how good the codec is. I suppose the new backdrops/effects are useful for someone, I guess. I would never use them, I would rather text-chat. So bonch, ready to eat crow? No "3D-Interface", no mention of ZFS, and no resolution independence. Just ten minor features, most of which are useless for productivity or were already included in Vista way back in November. Yes, time machine looks cool, but Home Server is *way* more functional. One-click, seamless backup for all computers on your network, with instant search capabilities built in - yep, all there. Just in: Oh. My. Word. Apple is porting Safari to Windows! Just what every Windows user needs! An insecure, buggy, and bloated browser (if they follow their Quicktime and iTunes model). I can't believe what I'm hearing!

Apple finally announced a way for developers to write apps on the iPhone! Use Safari and AJAX/Javascript! The apps will be entirely based on the company's internet servers! Wow. They sure love their developers!

"Pull your head out of your arse. Pogue's review was hardly "glowing"" and yet he concluded that Apple TV was the "most newsworthy" of any digital media streaming box. Apple: "At the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, we're planning to show you a feature-replete version of Windows Vista, called Mac OS X Leopard, and you can take home a perpetual beta copy, soon to be preloaded on Mac's 6 months from now." "3D interface is finally here!" and yet there is no DirectX10 on a Mac. what a waste of a good GeForce 8 GPU! "See you in line for a Mac." better watch out behind you bonch - the SmashMyiMac.com boys are behind you. XP

"and yet he concluded that Apple TV was the "most newsworthy" of any digital media streaming box." It's true. It's a stinging indictment of the poor quality of the competition.

"Safari's coming to Windows!" one word: UGH-LY!! menus are seriously passé. funny how the flash demo on their website doesn't show Safari running on Windows Vista. wait until XP SP3 ships before they support Vista (like either will ever happen). the page with the demo doesn't even utilize fonts that incorporate font-smoothing either. now how would that justify download a PoS browser if the demo page is supposed to be representative of the product they're marketing? "Apple is porting Safari to Windows! Just what every Windows user needs! An insecure, buggy, and bloated browser" bundled with products from the biggest spyware company on the planet - Google. it other words, no thanks. XP

"I can't believe what I'm hearing!" Believe it, Nate. I'm posting this from Safari for Windows right now. The ability to resize this text entry box is uber-cool, and the tabbed browsing is better than Firefox or even the excellent implemeation in IE7. Yeah. I'm going to like this a lot.

"It's a stinging indictment of the poor quality of the competition." and yet he raved about the XBOX 360 in his review AND his look-back. NOW who's biased? XP

"The world's best browser. Now on Windows, too." here's my analysis of the above statement: 1) you mean they had Internet Explorer for DOS?! quick, will that run on my 486? 2) Apple math: "greater marketshare" ^ (-1) = "better product" 3) "Private Browsing" - an uninstaller for Google? 4) "Elegant User Interface" - is that Apple's "Elegant User Interface" #1, #2, or #3? i'm confused. 5) i need 256MB of RAM for XP, why??! IE7 runs even with 128 (sadly for testing reasons, yes, i've even tried that) 6) where do i sign-up? while i'm signing my life away, where's that US Army recruiter too? XP

Call me crazy, but IE works just fine for me. I've got my tabs, I've got my favorites, and everything is just peachy. I don't need another browser. However, I do like Apple's strategy. Get more people using Apple software, and eventually they can overcome one of the largest hurdles that Apple has - that it doesn't run the software people want/need. Makes sense.

Even if you don't use their products, Apple developing software for Windows is great for both sides. IE7 is get on Vista, and even XP SP2 as long you have proper security software. This will offer choice and move web standards along at a faster rate which ultimately benefits you and I the consumer. I applaud Apple for offering choice and hope they can scale down the memory issues their software usually has on the Windows platform.

Safari on Windows....why??? It barely runs on a Mac...sure, I get the choice thing...that is great. But, the biggest difference is the Private Browsing...that is great for your everyday pr0n browsing punks, but what does it really offer as a reason to switch? --tayme

Typing this on Safari. Yikes! It's gotta go. The text looks ugly. Maybe things will improve later, but as of now, it's back to Firefox.

I'm clearly not an Apple supporter, but I would mention that Safari is still in Beta.

"I'm clearly not an Apple supporter, but I would mention that Safari is still in Beta." Yeah, I know. That's why I said I'm planning to go back to Firefox as of now.I'll definitely try it again later. One thing I dislike about Safari, though is how inconsistent it is with the Windows Vista UI. It looks bad in Vista and I don't really expect Apple to to change that.

http://tinyurl.com/2uxuyj That's an interesting article - somewhat related to Paul's original one.

"sure, I get the choice thing...that is great" and yet Linux fans "get" the same thing. sure it's a "choice" and all, but when that choice throws functionality out the window, count me out. XP

on topic: this is yet another way that Google wants to get their teeth into your data and index it all online and sell it to the highest bidder. XP

Google wants to be the de-facto standard of search engines, but they don't value the power of partners. that's where they'll lose, and Microsoft will win out in the end. XP