Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Calls For More Limits On Microsoft

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the keeping-watch-a-while-longer dept.

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.

cancel ×


Google huh... (3, Insightful)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644259)

Im afraid with Google, we may be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I hate MS as much as the next guy (Linux user for quite a while now), but would Google really be any better as the 800 lb gorilla on the block? Oh, well, chalk it up to paranoia, but I really would hate to see one evil overlord replaced by another.

Re:Google huh... (0, Offtopic)

mashade (912744) | about 7 years ago | (#19644293)

Agreed. Think of it as having GWB in office, and replacing him with someone less evil...

Re:Google huh... (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#19644325)

Like, say, Charles Manson?

Re:Google huh... (1)

mashade (912744) | about 7 years ago | (#19644485)

I guess it is all relative, isn't it? :)

69 HRS 2 go til time 2 iPHONE HOME !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644587)

69 HRS 2 go til time 2 iPHONE HOME !!

i wuv apple !! i wuv-wuv steve jobs !!

buy iPHONE I wuv u 2 !!

I'm stealin' this song... (1)

Xenious (24845) | about 7 years ago | (#19645209)

from U2 who stole it back from Charles Manson who stole it from the Beatles .."When I get to bottom I go back to the top of the slide...."

Re:Google huh... (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#19644297)

I wouldn't worry about it...after all, Google's stated goal is to do no evil, right? *tongue firmly placed in cheek*

Re:Google huh... (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644319)

Right, and the Government only has your best interests at heart.../sarcasm

Re:Google huh... (0, Flamebait)

aichpvee (631243) | about 7 years ago | (#19644859)

The government is whoever we elect it to be (except when the supreme court decides or someone just steals it). So I guess if we don't care enough to keep the idiots from electing people who don't have our best interests at heart that's the kind of government we get. And I'd say deserve.

But the government doesn't have to be a bunch of assholes like bush and his gang. But you seem to be one of the idiots who has drunk the koolaid, so it probably doesn't do any good to tell you that.

Re:Google huh... (2, Insightful)

RealEstateGuy (1088269) | about 7 years ago | (#19644317)

"hate microsoft" - dude get a life.. They are a software company. Maybe not a big fan Don't care for their software But saying "hate" just shows that you're a tard.

Re:Google huh... (5, Insightful)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644375)

Ok, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of MS I don't think hate is too strong a word, or at least in the context of their business practices. Any corporation that actively attempts to stifle/destroy new innovations that they don't control by use of illegal/monopolistic methods deserves nothing but contempt. They stopped being "just a software company" a long time ago.

Re:Google huh... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644483)

You either aren't old enough or you haven't been paying attention. Microsoft has cemented its dominant position in the industry by employing tactics against its rivals only slightly less ruthless than Saddam's, all while crowing about its own prowess as an "innovator". At the time Netscape broke through in 1995, the PC desktop software industry had been stagnant for several years because of Microsoft's reputation for crushing anyone who came up with an original idea.

Naturally, Microsoft responded to Netscape not only bundling its browser into the operating system ("free" for anyone who bought a Windows PC), but making it architecturally part of the operating system so that Steve Ballmer could tell a judge that he didn't know how to remove IE without completely breaking Windows. It was the default browser for most PC's sold.

And that's just one competitor, one story that was essentially repeated several dozen times throughout Microsoft's history.

BTW I'm not suggesting that Google will be any better, or that they shouldn't be watched like a hawk. Chances are they won't be, and they should be.

Re:Google huh... (1, Troll)

Herby Sagues (925683) | about 7 years ago | (#19645233)

OK, arent you getting things a bit out of perspective? I mean, what's the wose Microsoft ever made? Bundling some software components? Defining pricing for some products based on the purchase of other products? Not caring about the compatibility of some competitor products? All those things are in fact legal and regularly (I'd say systematically) done by the other companies you love and admire. The only reason they've been condemned for doing something illegal (actually, they never got a firm conviction, but that shouldn't be a relevant point) is because they've been successful to the point of reaching a monopoly. And you can't claim they are a monopoly because they did that illegal (or even unethical) stuff, because the stuff they did is only wrong ONCE you are a monopoly. I think comparing minor business misbehavior (yes, minor, it wasn't some accounting scandal, it wasn't stealing trade secrets, and it wasn't tax evasion or anything like that) to war atrocities and genocide is really, really stupid. Unfair pricing, bundling and anticompetitive product design are all bad things and the company was fairly punished because of that (with the results the users are suffering now every day) but they are all things that pale in comparison to the average corporate behavior. PS: the market had been stagnant by 1995? 1990-1995 was the most explosive period in the PC business. I think you were looking at some other market.

Re:Google huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645333)

You should take a look at my 64 bit lab, it has a true predator of a Mac system, a power house Linux box, and this really retarded windows box.

Re:Google huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645441)

erm.. sorry, I was laughing so hard, I forgot to quote you.

the market had been stagnant by 1995? 1990-1995 was the most explosive period in the PC business. I think you were looking at some other market.

Seriously, a large and vibrant software market is chomping at the bit, because M$ has been sitting on their ass for years. Microsoft has purposely ignored development for years, they would rather peddle work that was finished in '93 (NT). Go read something before you hurt yourself.

Re:Google huh... (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | about 7 years ago | (#19644339)

Think of it more as one of the later Hummer commercials, with the two boxing robots. You might remember the actual game, you might not. But at least they're boxing each other and not the little guys.

Re:Google huh... (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644395)

"But at least they're boxing each other and not the little guys."

And there we have the upside to all of this.

Re:Google huh... (4, Insightful)

Infernodogget (1120103) | about 7 years ago | (#19644349)

Google isn't the evil company that we know Microsoft as. Google focusing on the development of a great search engine, instead of taking the money and selling out for media development(Yahoo), is why they have grown to such heights. The fact that a fresh and legit force is now bossing evil Microsoft around, is quite refreshing for the tech world, and should be applauded instead of demeaned.

Re:Google huh... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645165)

Wow, and people rip on Apple fanboys for drinking the kool-aid. Let's be clear, google is complaining that Windows ships with a feature that's trivial to disable either by a user or an installer, that given todays media sizes, it should ship with by default (or else explain why Microsoft should be permitted to supply a file manager, or even a built in text dialogue). Google is inconvienenced by this development as they ship a horrible product with truly lacking privacy protections, which *they* don't even charge for. So their remedy is to have lawyers write my OS.

Seriously, fuck google. Damn the collateral damage, examples must be made. I don't see Google opening up page rank and exposing ever aspect of their technology through their API, and they have a monopoly on web searching. I'm going down to Home Depot, I find myself short kerosene and a pitchfork.

Re:Google huh... (-1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19645169)

Google isn't the evil company that we know Microsoft as.

Microsoft isn't the evil company we know Microsoft as either, so the point is moot.

Google focusing on the development of a great search engine, instead of taking the money and selling out for media development(Yahoo), is why they have grown to such heights.

But.. Microsoft isn't Yahoo as well, so the point is moot again. What the hell is your point again. Going blindly after slogans again? When will you people learn ?!

I'd agree with you, but... (1)

jd (1658) | about 7 years ago | (#19644351)

...there's always a chance that they'll put each other out of business and thus save the world. Maybe.

Re:I'd agree with you, but... (0, Flamebait)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 7 years ago | (#19644577)

there's always a chance that they'll put each other out of business and thus save the world. Maybe.

Thats like hoping God will include Christians of *all* denominations (Anglican, Catholic, 7th day adventists, Jehovas witnesses as well as Mormons, Jews, Muslims and Scientologists[1] in the Rapture.

Sure, it would be *nice* of Him...

1. Ok so Scientologists aren't exactly monotheists but it would still be cool if they could all be taken away as well.

Re:I'd agree with you, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645279)

that was cool

Re:I'd agree with you, but... (1, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 7 years ago | (#19645355)

Thats like hoping God will include Christians of *all* denominations (Anglican, Catholic, 7th day adventists, Jehovas witnesses as well as Mormons, Jews, Muslims and Scientologists[1] in the Rapture.
He will. We are to be judged not by what creed we claim, but by how well we know the Savior, no matter what name we call Him.

Of course, the ones who go by-by are the ones who moderate the exesses you're trolling about -- so expect the world to get crappier if the Dispensationists are right and there is a Rapture before the end time.

Re:Google huh... (4, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | about 7 years ago | (#19644357)

I'd rather have two 800 pound gorillas than just one. Competition is good.

Anyway, I just don't see the comparison. Size isn't the issue. Google doesn't have a network monopoly, which is the big difference between Microsoft and Google. If I want to stop using Google tomorrow, I can switch to a competitor without any downsides -- other than the competitor might not be as good. (example: gmail lets me forward my mail to a new account, use a non-gmail address, etc....they seem to go out of their way to NOT lock me in. That's a HUGE difference from the way Microsoft has always done business)

Double standards & patent issues (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644909)

How are you locked into using Microsoft software? You could format your PCs and switch to Ubuntu Linux. On the server side of things, Redhat isn't struggling either. However patents ARE a huge threat to competition and ARE a monopolistic anti-competitive method to kill competition. This is a true example of how one competitor can kill their competition, gaining a monopoly share of the market in the process.

And how many websites now rely on Google Maps, Google Search or other features for the site to work correctly? These Google features are good enough that competitors offerings are not used by anyone, so I guess you could say that Google is taking everyone into their system (killing competitors) before charging for the service? Or with Google Mail, what if they locked you out from accessing your email because they change to a "pay-for-email" service?

IMO this isn't a problem, as competitors CAN exist alongside Google given that it doesn't take much time and effort to create an alternative to whatever proprietary systems Microsoft/Google can come up with. Silverlight took 21 days to port to Linux. Building a new open source Google search engine wouldn't be all that difficult either.

With patents, competitors CAN'T exist alongside Google/Microsoft. Everyone is locked into using Google/Microsoft because these companies have a legal right to a monopoly on their "inventions" and can charge ridiculous/non-viable amounts for patent licensing (hence blocking all competition).

Re:Google huh... (1)

nwbvt (768631) | about 7 years ago | (#19644991)

"I'd rather have two 800 pound gorillas than just one. Competition is good."

Thats like saying MS doesn't have a monopoly because Exxon sells more gas than them. Two 800 pound gorillas does not equal competition if both are in different industries. MS is the 800 pound gorilla in fields like operating systems and office software, Google is the 800 pound gorilla in search and web advertising.

"If I want to stop using Google tomorrow, I can switch to a competitor without any downsides -- other than the competitor might not be as good."

That depends on your point of view. As a web user, yeah it might be pretty easy to move. But as a business trying to advertise your product, its not that simple. You need to have your product turn up in the top few search results on Google, as it is the dominant search engine out there today, with more hits than the next two search engines (Yahoo and MSN) combined. What people are worried about is that Google basically controls the all important industries of search and web advertising, no one really cares how hard it is for you to move your gmail account.

Re:Google huh... (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 7 years ago | (#19645409)

my whole problem with the 800lb gorilla anology when applied to google, is just HOW is google going to control how we use our pc's?

the only way they can do that is to make the best product. they can't threaten suppliers with higher OS prices like MS did if they tried to sell OS/2. they can't write in subtle incompatabilities to prevent uptake of standards.

if google started whacking great big annoying ads in gmail and search, i'd just move to another provider in the blink of an eye. no money lost, no inconvienence.

Re:Google huh... (1)

shawn443 (882648) | about 7 years ago | (#19644419)

Worst case is that they will still be slightly better. How are they going to be anti-competitive? How are they going to force restrictive EULA's down our throats? What could be their whiny equivalent to "Open Letter to Hobbyists"? They are certainly corporate, but so far, not Microsoft.

Re:Google huh... (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | about 7 years ago | (#19644627)

Here's one way: by getting you to use their services and hosting the data on their servers they can lock you into using their services in ways that locally storing data in closed formats never could. That was one of Microsoft's key anti-competitive strategies. The other, bundling, could equally well be done by google, and they do seem keen on it (as evidenced, for example, my making deals to have the google toolbar pre-installed, and paying companies to make google search the default). So they could be plenty anti-competitive.

Re:Google huh... (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | about 7 years ago | (#19645197)

Worst case is that they will still be slightly better. How are they going to be anti-competitive? How are they going to force restrictive EULA's down our throats?

The most obvious way is by prioritising (or deprioritising) search results for your company's website and/or advertisements depending on how much you pay, what other search engines you list with, etc.

Google's "customers" aren't the people using them so *search* the web, Google's customers are the people and businesses who depend on website and advertisement hits.

Re:Google huh... (1, Insightful)

bl8n8r (649187) | about 7 years ago | (#19644603)

> but would Google really be any better as the 800 lb gorilla on the block?

Here's the deal. Microsoft is able to get away with just about anything. If they can force google off the desktop with vista search (or whatever), there won't be any more google. Just like there isn't any more netscape. I don't think google is trying to strongarm microsoft but rather they are trying to deal with the shitty legal system microsoft is used to running. They need to start litigation early because they recognize this is what chair-chuckin-baldy meant by "going to fucking kill google"

Oh, and yes. google would be better being the 800 pound gorilla. I would much rather give the title to a company that hasn't run roughshod over it's entire user base yet. Once they do, we can hate them right alongside microsoft. Until that happens, I have a hell of a lot more faith in google than I do microsoft.

Re:Google huh... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 7 years ago | (#19644657)

Here's the deal. Microsoft is able to get away with just about anything. If they can force google off the desktop with vista search (or whatever), there won't be any more google.

Right. Because Google are a one-trick pony. Their whole business revolves around desktop search.

Just like there isn't any more netscape.

As long as they don't make the same mistake and let their primary product fall into buggy disrepair while they redirect all their resources into rewriting it from scratch and hiring lawyers, Google won't end up like Netscape.

Re:Google huh... (1)

aichpvee (631243) | about 7 years ago | (#19644683)

Yes, google would be better than microsoft. Next question.

Re:Google huh... (3, Insightful)

tc9 (674357) | about 7 years ago | (#19644755)

No one should resist Google absolute right to index all mail, all files, all sites, all traffic, all searches, all documents everywhere in every place. After all, they are sworn to "do no evil"

Google is the scariest company out there, right now - beyond MS, beyond Halliburton, beyond Blackwater.

Re:Google huh... (2, Insightful)

WalkingFish (902924) | about 7 years ago | (#19645219)

I don't share your dread. I think for the average slashdotter, MS is hated not so much because they are a monopoly but because they write crappy software. Google has really written some kick-butt apps and have forced some competition in the market.

Re:Google huh... (3, Insightful)

kinglink (195330) | about 7 years ago | (#19645273)

I'd like to say first thing first is we aren't going to get a perfect company. If you believe Stallman and believe FSF is the only way to roll, get out of my post. Period. I'm not here to entertain zealots.

Second Google has a lot going for it, they aren't "Evil" but they do cross the line at times. But the real question is are they a company or are they a humanitarian effort. Once you realize they are a company, also realize that they aren't crossing the line to limit people. They aren't trying to make a monopoly here. Hell they BOUGHT Youtube, knowing that with in 6 months they'd be in a law suit with the RIAA. If anything we should applaud them just for that.

But let's look at it this way. From what it looks like Microsoft is far worse than Google. That being said, Google left unchecked might not be the best thing but it could also be a good thing, and personally I'd take that option. We can assume Google is evil overlord number 2 but Google isn't looking that way. They look like a good company who while providing overly useful tools are also trying to turn a profit.

That is key however. They are a company. They want to make money. They do this at the same time as they benefit us. You'll never get something for nothing, but what Google has offered seems to be a fair trade. They do encroach a little on privacy issues. But let's also cut them a little slack. They don't hide this fact, and they don't force you to use their system. I'm willing to take a slight privacy hit if it generates advertising revenue for them. They're offering me a gig of space for Email, a fully functional search engine (no matter how I want to search) as well other features, personally I don't have anything to hide from Google. Go figure, I guess I haven't read 1984 as many times as some of the people here or perhaps I can think for myself rather than listen to what Orwell has to say.

We can't expect companies to run in a vacuum, we can't expect them not to make a profit especially when they give us the quality of service Google has, if you expect that then all you'll ever see is Evil Overlords. But at the same time if we don't attempt to replace Microsoft we'll always be stuck with Window's and while XP looked like a good step, Vista is just about as evil as you get. Personally I'd rather work with the company who's willing to fight against the RIAA versus the one who made a huge deal with them, and screwed their consumers to get a few more bullet points and probably some cash money deal under the table.

Trading Google for Microsoft sounds like a win win, and even if it turns around at worse this case will only make laws that allow more competition not less, so if that's not a win for the people, I really have no idea.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644261)

It is nice that Google is going to try to hold Microsoft to the antitrust agreement [for their benefit but still] but I also hope Google doesn't end up becoming the new Microsoft in doing so.

Perfect timing on Gooogle's part (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#19644273)

It's 100% certain that a new administration will be taking over in January of 2009. Best to get all of Microsoft's transgressions out in the open now so that by the time the new administration comes in, all the controversy will be hitting the new Attorney General's office in full force.

Re:Perfect timing on Gooogle's part (1)

jrsumm (466914) | about 7 years ago | (#19644309)

It's 100% certain that a new administration will be taking over in January of 2009.

You should make that 99.99%. You just never know.

interesting? (1, Flamebait)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | about 7 years ago | (#19644285)

What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice

You are aware of who the head of the department of justice is, right? It would be more interesting if they actually went to the head of the dept. of justice expecting a competent handling of their position.

Re:interesting? (1)

magixman (883752) | about 7 years ago | (#19644373)

Sorry but I don't see how this is going "over the heads" of anyone. Who says that the DOJ are the only ones to present and frame arguments regarding anti-trust issues. I think Google is entirely right to appeal directly to judge. Using the DOJ as your "advocate" is a double (at least) edge sword.

"Flamebait"? (2, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644595)

Looks like we have some Microsoft moderators today. It is not unreasonable for Google to go over the heads of opposing counsel and address the court directly. The only "political maneuver interesting" here is that the DOJ would choose to represent the plaintiff and the defendant in the same case. <statement type="under">It sounds suspiciously like a conflict of interest in the Department of Justice.</statement>

Re:"Flamebait"? (3, Informative)

jorghis (1000092) | about 7 years ago | (#19644691)

Its flamebait because he is ripping on Alberto Gonzales the head of the Justice Department. That whole mess is totally unrelated to this, but it is a divisive issue and people are likely to argue over it in an impolite manner. Sidetracking a thread into an unrelated flamewar == flamebait.

Re:"Flamebait"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645253)

Don't worry fucktarded shitdot sheeple, your fellow fucktards are going to meta-moderate the mods as unfair no matter how much of a flamebait it really was. That way only the Anti-Microsoft will be modded up and the Anti-Linsux will be modded down, no matter how insightful. Why not consider ending it all shitdot sheeple by slitting your fucking wrists fucktards.


One too many chairs thrown today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645437)


You go Google (4, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | about 7 years ago | (#19644295)

I know, Google is big and scary now as well, but I am pretty happy to see a new 300 pound gorilla in the room standing up to Microsoft.

The world is better with the dominant operating system open for competition. A court understood this once ( [] ), but clearly the DOJ is not going to enforce it without Google (and others with the wherewithal to do so) being vocal about it.

Re:You go Google (1)

Scottoest (1081663) | about 7 years ago | (#19644355)

A 300lb gorilla is clearly going to be no help to them here, as they are outweighed by 500lb., and to my knowledge if it came down to a fist fight, no gorilla can pick up over twice it's bodyweight.

- Scott

Re:You go Google (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 years ago | (#19644805)

no gorilla can pick up over twice it's bodyweight.

Wild primates are strong animals. The current best estimates for gorilla strength would suggest they can lift between 10 and 25 times as much as a human of equivalent weight.

In 1924, a female chimp in Bronx zoo weighing 135lb was able to lift 1,000lb.

Don't underestimate your president!

Re:You go Google (1)

Scottoest (1081663) | about 7 years ago | (#19645389)

You know, the funny thing is that when I wrote that, I mused that I would probably be corrected on my statement, haha.

"The More You Know"

- Scott

Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (1)

teh_commodore (1099079) | about 7 years ago | (#19644313)

From The Financial Times online: (link) []

Google went over the heads of justice department and state regulators to appeal directly to a federal judge to impose greater restrictions on the software company.

Does skipping steps in the legal process, (steps that the average small company would have to take) count as doing no evil?

Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (3, Interesting)

wellingj (1030460) | about 7 years ago | (#19644439)

It's "Don't be Evil." Doing evil and being evil are subjectively different IMO.
So is using your large companies power for the greater good doing (or being) evil?
I don't really think so...

Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (5, Insightful)

teh_commodore (1099079) | about 7 years ago | (#19644511)

I believe we're invoking the age-old D-The-Ends-Justify-The-Means argument, which of course means we're destined to spiral way off-topic.

So let's to it.

IMHO, the ends don't always justify the means. I lost a lot of respect for Novell, and for Xandros, when they made deals with Microsoft. I feel that, no matter what good could be gained from it, that these things upheld the philosophical underpinnings of the OSS community. Even if GPLv3 gets twisted in such a way that MS gets bent over a barrel and has to release their code, that won't be good. It will have been sneaky and underhanded, and we would be just as bad as them.

In much the same way, if Google resorts to the same power-brokering that Microsoft does, they will be doing evil. Doing evil is what makes one be evil. (Sorry for getting it wrong earlier, btw)

This could quickly become a PR nightmare for Google if they get painted in the wrong light, and for something that I see as trivial. Google is one of those companies, like Apple, where looking cool is important to their image, and their market base. Why risk it?

Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 7 years ago | (#19645189)

Greater good? That's a good way to spin it. How about we be a little more objective and say "for your vested interests"? Kinda changes the question, and the answer.

Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19645205)

It's "Don't be Evil." Doing evil and being evil are subjectively different IMO.

Wooooa. That sounds smart. I don't get it, since we're talking two huge companies with politics as complex as the number of sheer number of employees that work in them. But I'm sure it's smart. Discussing the finer nuances of "evil"-ness. Makes my life complere.

Ok, no, let's face it: every time I hear an argument about Google/Microsoft that includes "evil" in it, I feel dumber. And I believe I'm dumber, but I just prefer denial, like everyone else here.

Re:Do no Evil...By Any Means Neccesary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644665)

What are you talking about? Google has every right to appeal to the court, like every other party. No legal step has been skipped. You're making a big deal out of nothing.

GoogleOS (1)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | about 7 years ago | (#19644343)

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.

In all seriousness, I would not mind seeing some of the energy behind the ideas and innovation Google has come up with over the years put into a new OS, or at least, window manager. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with OSX ;)

Ahhh, now you know why it sucks. (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#19644427)

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:GoogleOS (1)

jombeewoof (1107009) | about 7 years ago | (#19644481)

The (desktop) OS market is already a little saturated.

You have Windows XP, which in it's own right is a decent OS. After tons of patches and service packs, it actually runs pretty darn smooth if you know how to administer it, or if you don't know enough to break it.

You have several hundred flavors of GNU/Linux to contend with, every one of them has a different goal and a slightly different way of doing things. (which IMHO will be the undoing of the whole damn sub-culture)
You have OSX "safari" (have to say with a lisp or it doesn't sound right) or whatever Apple's flavor of the month is.

Another mainstream OS would only appeal to uber-geeks, and those with a penchant for pain. (and I think Linux has that demographic well in hand)

A google OS would also cement it's current reputation as being the next "Evil-Empire" That is the last thing they want, also privacy advocates would go crazy with all the hoo hawing over one company doing the search, and desktop search, and OS, and monopoly this and Park Place that, and nobody ever wants Baltic, what's up with that. A hotel on baltic is worth more than a house on Boardwalk and costs the same amount of money.

Re:GoogleOS (1)

pavera (320634) | about 7 years ago | (#19645135)

Nice monopoly reference, and I agree, those little purples have won me more games of monopoly than any other set :)

I love taking people's 200 for passing go as well, nothing feels better.

Re:GoogleOS (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 7 years ago | (#19644875)

An OS isn't the way to go right now. The future is in online apps, which Google is doing quite well at providing. If all your programs can run on any computer regardless of OS, then the OS becomes meaningless, and Windows loses its primary strength - compatibility with everything and everybody.

Re:GoogleOS (1)

bladesjester (774793) | about 7 years ago | (#19645395)

They tried that sort of thing when I was a lot younger. Some cities went so far as to start to offer services on their computer (back when computers were huge) via a home terminal, if memory serves.

It didn't fly then, and it will have a hell of a time now.

Why? Because people like having control over both their files and the programs used to manipulate them. Lose net access and you lose the ability to get any real work done. Backhoe of death? Router blows out? Just plain forget to pay your bill? Too bad. No productivity until the connection issue is fixed.

Businesses don't tend to like working that way. Too much unnecessary risk involved.

Re:GoogleOS (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 7 years ago | (#19645429)

See also: Google Gears [] .

Re:GoogleOS (1)

thePsychologist (1062886) | about 7 years ago | (#19645027)

Google doesn't have many options for releasing an OS. They'd face exactly the same problems as Linux, and they'd probably use the Linux kernel at that. Just because they have a large (not monopoly mind you) portion of the search market, they have zero of the OS market.

M$ Desktop Search. (-1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#19644363)

User Search Term: "Linux"
M$ Desktop Search, instant answer: "Windows in unable to find Linux on your Desktop" - BSoD -

Nothing new here! [] Does anyone in the whole wide world think M$ is going to do anything but sabotage a "competitor" on "their" platform?

Re:M$ Desktop Search. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 7 years ago | (#19644671)

Demons your bullshit is tiring. Here's the top results for "Linux" from [] Index
Alan Cox's, UK oriented, Linux news and information site. Includes a gnuwhoo-like index of commercial Linux software. Updates weekly, event-driven.

Linux Home (UK) --
This site provides information and support to Linux users in the UK. Specific attention is paid to Content Management Systems and the ability for users to publish their own content.
* -- - Welcome to the home of linux, the best linux resource in the UK. ... The MS message: Time to invest in Free Software . In an attempt to inspire fear, uncertainty and ...

The Linux Home Page at Linux Online
Comprehensive information and resources about the Linux Operating System.
* The Enterprise Linux Resource
Linux portal by the Linux community for the Linux community.

Ubuntu Home Page | Ubuntu
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and ...

Wow, looks less biased than your posts!

Whatever. (1)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#19645307)

Do you really trust M$? Their search engine sucked before, as documented by the story linked above. They lie to their customers, to the government, their developers and to their own employees. What makes you think you can trust them?

Re The first post (3, Insightful)

Azuma Hazuki (955769) | about 7 years ago | (#19644429)

I have to agree with the first poster. Google scares the hell out of me, and I use their webmail and search every day. They're not as "obvious" a target as Microsoft since they're not (at present) an OS vendor, which may mean that, should they choose to do more evil, they won't be as visible. And Google doesn't work on OSes, it works on *data.* Huge, collected masses of data that would be any social-engineering data miner's wet dream.

Put another way, they traffic in information. An OS is, when you get right down to it, nothing but information, and there are alternatives to Windows. What will happen when/if there becomes no alternative to Google for web searches?

Re:Re The first post (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#19644545)

At least not until Haiku is viable :)

Re:Re The first post (1)

jombeewoof (1107009) | about 7 years ago | (#19644609)

There will always be alternatives.
Look closely, in the beginning the only alternatives to Windows were clunky, difficult to use, non-hardware supporting, command line driven, *nix Operating systems. or The fisher price Macs with the :) everywhere you look.

With the advent of collaboration, those *nix operating systems have been slowly and surely improved where they are usable to a much larger minority of people.

In the not too distant future I see a very similar thing happening in the web search market. 1 will rule them all, but there will always be a select few that refuse (for whatever reason) to go with the flow, and use what is best. These few will create their own damn system if they have to, just so long as they don't have to use what everyone tells them is the best. It will probably start the same, a difficult to use, quirky search will be built upon and improved by the masses to become a "decent" alternative to what most consider "the real thing".

The only major difference that I can see is the means to the end. MS, was at the time the Best Operating System. (circa 1994) but they gained their market share through deceptive and certainly unfair practices.

Google on the other hand, has gained it's market share by being the Best. There is no better search engine, and when gmail came out there was NOBODY offering 2G email storage for free, let alone anonymous.

I drink Coke, I smoke Marlboro, I eat Purdue Chicken, I use Sharpie Magic Markers, I search google, and I run GNU/Linux all for the same reason. I believe these to be the best. Not because the corporations tell me they're the best, but because as a consumer I tend to stick with the things that I like.

Just so I don't get flamed, Best is used subjectively throughout this post. If you happen to disagree with me, save it. I really don't care what you think, you'll not change my mind on what I decide to purchase any more than the government or the RIAA.

If you disagree with the underlying logic, I welcome intelligent debate.

Re:Re The first post (1)

Cadallin (863437) | about 7 years ago | (#19645061)

eh? 1994? Let's see we have Windows 95, compared with Mac OS 7.1, Amiga OS 3.0, Solaris 2.4, and IRIX 6.0.1, and OS/2 3.0 WARP. And you pick Windows 95?!? What the fuck is wrong with you? Depending on your uses, at least one of those OSes is vastly better than Windows 95. Mac OS 7.1 was better for low end Desktop publishing/image editting, IRIX 6.0.1 was hugely better if you had the money for a $50,000 workstation (photoshop and other apps being available on both Mac OS and IRIX, the IRIX machines being faster). Amiga OS 3.0 was greatly better for gaming in 1994. OS/2 WARP was best if you wanted the best DOS/Windows 3.1 compatibility. Solaris or IRIX was better if you needed a commercial UNIX that wasn't on a POWER mainframe. Even if you wanted office Apps, Microsoft Office, running on a Powermac 8100 with an 80Mhz PowerPC and maxed out ram (264MB), was a better, faster option than the fastest Pentium desktop you could buy at the time (A 100 Mhz pentium with SCSI Hard drives and as much ram as you could afford below about 128MB)

Windows 95 at release was horrid. DirectX wasn't released for another few years (the first major game I can remember was Diablo in 1996), Hardware support was spotty, and plenty of features were missing altogether (Gee, its great that things have changed so much right?) I can't even imagine any set of criteria under which Windows 95 was the best option in 1994 that doesn't involve "Must use the latest products from Microsoft."

Re:Re The first post (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 7 years ago | (#19645363)

A competitor will come about. I laughed at google at first because Yahoo search was the defacto standard and why use anything else? They won and the game was over.

But Google took over by a supperior product.

Now MS on the hand winds by bundling software with every computer into existence. Sadly it works as everyone and their brother use IE, Office, and Media player because its what comes with their computer.

If you are not satified with google then use something else. I did and switched to google as with most everyone else.

BTW I do not agree with google but they have a right to be worried as MS is violating anti trust laws which could hurt their revenue.

Marketing (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | about 7 years ago | (#19644533)

This is a marketing tactic. Google knows that many people will respect this move.

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. ;-) And, no, I don't like it, either.

Re:Marketing (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 years ago | (#19644941)

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.

Typically, yes, but not in the case of abusive monopolies. Most systems need regulators (human or mechanical) to avoid positive feedback loops.

Re:Marketing (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | about 7 years ago | (#19645097)

I can switch from Google by typing "" in my address bar. I can switch from Microsoft by getting my company to get a system to replace Exchange calendars and mail, reinstall most computers with a new operating system, set up a new network, new system to replace Sharepoint, replace all of our company standard documents, office applications, etc. The barrier to switch from Microsoft is MUCH higher, so their onus as a Monopoly to be interoperable is much higher than it would be with Google. Google only keeps it's "monopoly" by being good at what it does, rather than locking in their customers and making the barriers to switch impossibly high.

Re:Marketing (1)

swillden (191260) | about 7 years ago | (#19645383)

This could play out in favour of Microsoft who will likely ask that Google get regulated more heavily

On what grounds? Google doesn't have a monopoly in any space, and even in the area where they're closest to having a monopoly (search), they've shown no sign of trying to leverage it into dominance in other areas. Anti-trust law, the basis for the regulation of Microsoft, doesn't apply to Google. Given the way things are progressing, with both OS X and Linux making small inroads into Microsoft's desktop OS dominance, and ODF (with a little luck) reducing the MS Office format stranglehold, Microsoft's influence may decline to the point where they're no longer subject to special restrictions. Until tha time comes, though, Microsoft is a monopolist who has been convicted of abusing their monopoly position, and they have to play under different rules than everyone else.

When I first started working for IBM, they were still operating under the terms of a consent decree, which imposed various odd limitations on how they could compete. The chief difference between IBM and Microsoft, of course, is that IBM carefully *obeyed* the consent decree, and even extrapolated a bit to be on the safe side, so competitors didn't have to constantly complain to get them enforced.

Google pushes competitors around too (4, Insightful)

jorghis (1000092) | about 7 years ago | (#19644601)

I think this is a good change, but does Google really have the high ground here? They are using an extremely dominant product to market their other products. They use their search engine to push everything from google maps to gmail.

As an example can mapquest come along and demand that when a user searches for a street in google that their map be displayed prominantly as the first search item instead of google maps? This has a huge impact in the online maps business. Google has used a dominant product to gain a massive advantage in a new area. Not entirely unlike what the boys from Redmond like to do. Im not saying its evil, but it does seem kind of like a bully who starts crying when a bigger bully comes along.

Re:Google pushes competitors around too (2, Insightful)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | about 7 years ago | (#19644763)

This has a huge effect on the on-line map business.

Are you saying that you like mapquest better? Or that google offers a inferior product? Because when I go to 'google' to seach for 'maps' Im pretty well expecting to get google maps! If I wanted mapquest maps (and I cant ever imagine a situation where that would come up - to each their own) then I would go to mapquest. Are you trying to suggest that the government regulate which words I type into my browser?

Im afraid I just dont know what argument you are trying to make here.

Re:Google pushes competitors around too (1)

jorghis (1000092) | about 7 years ago | (#19644847)

It has nothing to do with which product is better. Honestly, I use google maps.

What I am saying is that they have used their dominant search engine to drive users to their maps program which has taken a huge share from mapquest because of this. It is very similar to how MS wants to use their dominant operating system to drive users to their search engine.

Sure, if I dont like it I can use a different search engine. The exact same way if I dont like it when MS does it I can use a different operating system.

I am not saying they are 'being evil' just that they are using their powerful position with maps to push around the littler dot coms, the same way that MS used to use their powerful OS position to push around the littler software companies back in their heyday.

Re:Google pushes competitors around too (1)

PinkPanther (42194) | about 7 years ago | (#19645397)

What I am saying is that they have used their dominant search engine to drive users to their maps program which has taken a huge share from mapquest because of this

I do know that from time to time I see a result with links to Google Maps. However, when I made the switch from Mapquest to Google Maps, it was not because of the search engine. I heard about a fantastic new web mapping application (probably on /. or techdirt or someplace), tried it out directly and never looked back.

It isn't Google's search engine that took me away from Mapquest, it was a superior product. Same goes for Gmail vs. Hotmail.

I haven't made the switch to some other Google products yet (e.g. Google Finance), but friends of mine are trying to convince me to update my bookmarks that way. There may even be links to GF in search results, but I don't find myself using them. ... ... ... yet.

Re:Google pushes competitors around too (4, Insightful)

pavera (320634) | about 7 years ago | (#19645053)

personally, I've never had google maps actually find an address I've looked for, mapquest and yahoo maps do a much better job than google maps.

However, it isn't about the "quality" of existing products. If I write a new online map program integrated with satelite video, that shows you in 3d how to navigate to your destination, and then has a really nice map you can print out, and it works on a mobile phone, and it has an excellent fuzzy logic engine which can decipher any address you enter. Say I create this end all be all of map products. How is anyone going to find it? Google maps will always appear above my superior map program no matter how many people link to it, or how many people use it, I will always be "second" at best.

Google is the great gatekeeper of the internet. If Google doesn't like you, you are out of business in the online world. That is the problem the parent is talking about.

Re:Google pushes competitors around too (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 7 years ago | (#19645327)

I am a little biased towards google because they won by making a supperior product and new non boolean search engine that read context of pages rather than parse keywords.

MS won by Bill Gates mom knowing IBMs CEO. Nothing else. They have used an illegal monopoly to crush competition by controlling the desktop. As a result we are stuck with IE, MS Office, and now Windows Server since unix/linux is losing ground still and owns only %50 of the market.

So if consumers use whatever MS tells them to then Google looses out.

Sure mapquest is an example that got hurt by google but at least Google makes great products and innovation. MS is just evil with no good products at all besides perhaps excel.

Next on the agenda... Google petitions... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | about 7 years ago | (#19644659)

To open up Windows to have a different default Kernel.

It is obviously an anti-trust matter when the OS in question doesn't allow for choice of kernel.

Sarcasm aside.... if they can prove the fact the search API is shitty and slows them down compared to Microsoft's internal search, then I say fine -- make Microsoft fix it. But to change the default search in an OS? Give me a break.

Searching and finding files and folders on a computer is something that is necessary to have in an operating system. If Google thinks they can do better, they have the option to make a version of Linux or a separate OS, and compete with Microsoft. But right now, to the victor go the spoils, and this is hardly a spoil of any war I've seen.

Do no evil (2, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 7 years ago | (#19644661)

Windows is MS OS, I don't like it and don't use it, however it is *their* OS, not Google's not the consumer's not the regulators'. Using antitrust to attack competition destroys value, it's *evil*. Same goes for AMD: they lost technological ground, they switch to outsourcing their development to get cheaper products instead of investing in research and their desperate move is what: antitrust lawsuit against Intel. Shame shame on them all.

Re:Do no evil (1)

thePsychologist (1062886) | about 7 years ago | (#19644799)

I'm happy you recognized that it's evil, because very few these days would recognize attacking Microsoft as evil, especially since MS can be used as a stepping stone to new heights of monopolies.

YRO? A big ugly new monopoly flexing its muscles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19644719)

Google is one of the most evil companies around, the dark titans of information dominance. AKA the new monopoly on the block. Why Google should be able to tell Microsoft what to do is beyond me. What happened to "mind your own monopoly?".

I look out and see in Google a company that takes a lot from the open source world, but give nothing back. Well, a few worthless trinkets. Why so many people "love" Google is difficult to understand. The company is bad to the bone.

Given time, Google will make Microsoft look like nice guys. And a few people, probably rotting in Gitmo thanks to Google, will say "told you so".

Dominatrix (1)

fishthegeek (943099) | about 7 years ago | (#19644749)

Microsoft capitulated pretty quickly when it came to the search thing in Vista, but Google is looking more and more like a dominatrix that is just flogging her little bitch.

Ballmer tied to a slightly thrown chair....
Google: Who is your search queen slave?
Steve: You are mistress, may I please revamp my already released operating system search features for you?

Re:Dominatrix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645247)

Keep your fantasies off Slashdot kthxbye.

It all depends what "evil" is. (3, Insightful)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | about 7 years ago | (#19644777)

Google, c'mon. Nobody likes a billion-dollar cry-baby. Take Paris Hilton, for example. (Mom!!!?!)

It appears to me that Google is really stretching the definition of its "don't be evil" mission by playing the "pull" card and trying to get an already over-reaching government to bitchslap Microsoft on their behalf. Ayn Rand, call your office.

Google, if you've given up on trying to make it on your ability and have decided instead to play the looter's game, please issue a press release to that effect so that I can be properly and officially disappointed in you, and switch my IE and Mozilla over to MS Live search just for spite.

Re:It all depends what "evil" is. (1)

GuyNamedNate (1120123) | about 7 years ago | (#19644833)

+1 for the Ayn Rand reference. Kinda scary how the world looks more and more like Ayn Rand's nightmare depicted in Atlas Shrugged every day. The fact that Google is exploiting the "already over-reaching government", as you put it, is to be both expected and despised.

Re:It all depends what "evil" is. (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | about 7 years ago | (#19645111)

Why thank ya. (And if you wouldn't mind actually _giving_ me a +1, that'd be great, because someone already modded me -1/Overrated. *grin*)

But just a clarification, Atlas Shrugged really wasn't Rand's nightmare. Just the opposite: it was more ideal vision of _real_ moral humanity and the rather _big_ difference between them and a bunch of cannibals. Rand wrote more to praise the roses than to damn the weeds. No doubt the world her antagonists chose rightly to abandon and watch destroy itself _was_ a nightmare world indeed, but frankly, Rand didn't write the novel as a warning to people who choose to live in such a world -- her effort would have been wasted. Rand chose instead to hold productive individuals up as examples of what real men (average men, _not_ heroes) really were: a means to their own ends, and not the means of others.

Bonus points to you for realizing that a goodly number of folks still think it's moral and just to make everybody else live in their nightmare. It's hard to ingest a news article or editorial these days without some aspect of the dying world of Atlas Shrugged leaping out at you from the content.

Re:It all depends what "evil" is. (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 7 years ago | (#19645291)

Well Microsoft is the crybaby in this situation since they have been lobbying the Bush administration quite heavily. Infact the DOJ even want as far as to file a friend of the court petition on behalf of MS on this case??

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.

Which part of the consent decree? (2, Interesting)

Londovir (705740) | about 7 years ago | (#19644839)

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....


I've read this story before! (-1, Troll)

gordgekko (574109) | about 7 years ago | (#19645023)

Can't compete? Call the gub'ment! It's the Netscape story all over again!

Google actually has me cheering for Microsoft.

I must be missing the basic principles somehow (1)

VorpalEdge (967279) | about 7 years ago | (#19645203)

Let me summarize what I understand so far: Google wants Microsoft to allow the option to switch default search programs, and is browbeating Microsoft over it. Now, I have a few questions about this situation...

One, isn't desktop search part of the operating system? I can see, vaguely, how bundling Internet Explorer could cause an antitrust complaint if Microsoft was an asshole in other ways (which they were). However, desktop search? Why does the ability to find files on your computer need competition? IE was a case of an external product being bundled in to compete on a completely different playing field outside the OS you just bought. Desktop search, however, is a case of using that OS to figure out what you did with that file you edited a few months ago, which is definitely an integral part of the OS. What's next, Google filing antitrust complaints that Microsoft doesn't allow a built-in option to switch to the GoogleOS they reveal next year or something?

(and yes, I am wondering if that analogy is flawed. however, I honestly can't pin down a reason. if it is, someone please correct me)

As I see it, MS allowing other search engines would be nice, but hardly necessary, and hardly something to get the government involved over. I'm not even sure *why* google wants to get it's own search engine in there anyways. I don't have any prior experience with google desktop and am unsure of the features, but the only way google could make money off this is to somehow link it to advertising or a paid service (either directly or including "features" that link to such a webpage). The search itself is quite useless in that regard... Really, from where I stand, this looks like a moneygrab/brand recognition thing that plays off everyone's "omg hate microsoft!" feelings.

However, given that I'm writing this without much thought on the matter, don't take me too seriously.

Re:I must be missing the basic principles somehow (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645313)

From what I understand:

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's basic CYA by Google --- not that I'm rooting for them anyways. And symantec did the same thing ....

gah (1)

ImTheDarkcyde (759406) | about 7 years ago | (#19645225)

Does it severely irriate anyone else that Google is relentless in trying to nerf what is undoubtably the best feature in vista?

Sure, i used Google Desktop Search on XP, but what exactly is the big problem with me NOT having to download a bunch of junk just to search my files? Lets travel back in time and prevent MS from including web browsers, note pads, and painting programs too!

I speak for myself when I say I expect a complete product when i buy an OS, not some featureless chunk of harddrive.

What's really interesting about this story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19645251)

is that it's being broken by Scientific American. Since when did they even have a newsdesk, let alone one capable of breaking mainstream tech stories ahead of any other source?

Just consider this (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19645295)

Which company in their right mind would stop demanding random stuff from their competition that benefits them. Especially if it seems to work. None.

And in this light, the fact Google is never happy, they're just maximizing their luck with the entire "Microsoft locked Windows down" inertia.

I just see how many of your are trying to read into this "if Google does it, then it's the right thing for everyone". No, you idiots. It's the right thing for Google. It's completely irrelevant if it's the right thing for everyone.

Do the same to Google... (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 7 years ago | (#19645317)

I think that they should do the same to Google ... just because Fair Is Fair!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account