ie8 fix
madison

Microsoft repels Google antitrust complaints

By | June 11, 2007, 3:35am PDT

Summary: The New York Times has a story about Microsoft fighting off Google’s antitrust complaints against Windows Search built in to Vista. “Google complained to federal and state prosecutors that consumers who try to use its search tool for computer hard drives on Vista were frustrated because Vista has a competing desktop search program that cannot be [...]

The New York Times has a story about Microsoft fighting off Google’s antitrust complaints against Windows Search built in to Vista.

“Google complained to federal and state prosecutors that consumers who try to use its search tool for computer hard drives on Vista were frustrated because Vista has a competing desktop search program that cannot be turned off. When the Google and Vista search programs are run simultaneously on a computer, their indexing programs slow the operating system considerably, Google contended. As a result, Google said that Vista violated Microsoft’s 2002 antitrust settlement, which prohibits Microsoft from designing operating systems that limit the choices of consumers.”

I’m not sure if this can be compared to the antitrust case against Microsoft in the late 90s (See how Microsoft botched the antitrust case in the late 90s).  Back then you had a case of Microsoft threatening Compaq computers with a termination of their Windows license agreement if they dared feature the Netscape browser and not Microsoft Internet Explorer.  In this particular case, the mere existence of a competing search engine from Microsoft doesn’t necessarily prove antitrust violations unless someone’s arm was being twisted to not feature Google Desktop or risk losing their right to bundle Windows.  I would venture to guess that it’s currently unlikely that Microsoft would be so bold and reckless as it was in the late 90s with all the legal troubles that remain to be settled.

Furthermore, it is quite trivial to shut down the Windows Search Service.  In fact we don’t even need the user to manually do this, there’s no reason the Google desktop installer can programmatically shut down and disable the Windows Search service (with the user’s permission UAC elevation) if it wants exclusive ownership of search on the desktop.  But the newest Windows Search Service seems to be performing fairly well and I’ve been using it for the last 5 months without problems and this is coming from someone who exclusively uses Google for web searches.  Google has also had some security problems with the desktop search product not to mention some controversial features that took internal company data and sent it out to Internet Servers.  Google’s response was to offer an enterprise product for purchase that would globally manage those features which angered some enterprise IT departments.

One other major factor is that Microsoft - unlike the late 90s - is actively lobbying the Government.  According to the same New York Times story:

For its part, Microsoft, which spent more than $55 million on lobbying activities in Washington from 2000 to 2006 and substantially more on lawyers, has become a more effective lobbying organization.

This is a hard lesson learned from the late 90s when Bill Gates personally hated politics and avoided Government while Microsoft’s opponents lobbied hard in Washington.  Microsoft stayed home while the Justice Department under Bill Clinton started its antitrust investigation of Microsoft and that oversight (along with its arrogance and refusal to settle) nearly caused Microsoft to be split in two.  I’ll have to leave it up to you to decide if this latest antitrust complaint from Google has merit or if Microsoft has better lobbyists.  All I know is that Google is no stranger to Washington politics.

Poll

Should Vista be allowed to bundle Desktop Search?

.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

George Ou

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?page_id=557

Biography

George Ou

George Ou, a former ZDNet blogger, is an IT consultant specializing in Servers, Microsoft, Cisco, Switches, Routers, Firewalls, IDS, VPN, Wireless LAN, Security, and IT infrastructure and architecture.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
88
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Over the Top Reply
Aragorn7 26th Jun 2007
It's one thing to disagree with George, but it's another to add your expletives. When you're that angry, you can't always think clearly. George is hardly a shill. His article was not about how wonderful Microsoft is, but what they were doing in this case with Google and whether Google had a valid complaint.

Assuming your position on Microsoft is 100% correct (for the sake of this discussion) it does not, therefore, mean that Microsoft is always wrong in every instance. Because three out of five balls pulled out of a brown sack are black doesn't mean they're all black. Two could actually be another color. George was asking us to evaluate this case not what we think of Microsoft in general but on the merits of this specific issue.

I would implore you in the future to rely on the soundness of your stipulated arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. You won't believe how much more persuasive others will find you to be.

Respectfully
0 Votes
+ -
As much as I want to bash Microsoft
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
As much as I want to bash Microsoft, this is a fair form of competition. Personally, I think Google should be pushing OEMs to include Google desktop, similar to how they do this with Sun Microsystems. Mozilla and Opera should be doing the same.

I think the key problem is that when dealing with users, they like to use what is set in front of them unless they deem what is set in front of them, as inappropriate. Unfortunately, only geeks and hackers are the first to be unsatisfied.

Also, I feel that because there was no inclusion of Apple in this lawsuit, that they are not being fair. Apple also is including Desktop Search in their product, and even though they are not considered a desktop monopoly, they are still using the same tactics and should be held accountable for at least a certain level of liability.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree.
donnellb 11th Jun 2007
I like Microsoft Product. Been using Vista RTM two weeks before it was released. Fully legal version. Before I never used the Google Search app, but the search built into vista is great. It works everytime I use it. They say it cannot be disable but yet I remember seeing options to turn it off. And yes as you said Apple has the same thing but yet the only go after Microsoft? This may be a little cry babying on Googles part.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, when Google's CEO is on Apple's Board, then you can start to smell the stench of foul play. Not that Eric Schmidt is a terrible guy. He just has a bad record when trying to go head to head against Microsoft.

As much smack as I talk about Apple, I will still call a spade tool used for digging trenches.
If you don't have a monopoly . . . .

Microsoft is the only one here with a monopoly.
0 Votes
+ -
Anti-Competitive Behavior is such
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
And should be called out. I only see one vendor for Mac OS as well as one vendor for Apple computers. Therefore we should stop them before they become a monopoly.
to them. I would not mind seeing more anti-bundling laws in any case, even for non-monopolies. The great thing about Linux is that any distributor can create any kind of bundle they want.
0 Votes
+ -
So....
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
http://crunchgear.com/2007/05/13/apple-gains-marketshare-like-a-lot-of-it/

Would that mean that Apple is still below 5% of sales?

Granted, this does not account for the desktop market, but the desktop market is becoming less of a market than the Notebook market which means that Apple may have more than 5% of the OS sales.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Remember, monopoly lasw ONLY applie
M.R. Kennedy 11th Jun 2007
DonnieBoy:

Thanks for including yet another of your "Microsoft is bad, everyone else is good" posts.
0 Votes
+ -
Google & OEM
rye_guy 13th Jun 2007
They already do include Google Desktop on OEMs. Anybody buy a new Dell recently? Hello, Google.
0 Votes
+ -
Google would most likely have to pay the OEM's to get their's as a default where as Microsoft does not.
0 Votes
+ -
Something can be worked out...
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
Then perhaps Microsoft should foot the bill. Perhaps instead of Mozilla or Google getting their products preloaded, perhaps Microsoft could discount Windows to keep their products as the default. It would be double dipping on the OEM's part, but I like the idea of bargaining.
get an advantage in Search. Why is competing on the merits so hard for MS if they have a good search product?
0 Votes
+ -
Sometimes you need a business mind
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
When you are in the business of making money, you need to think as such.

OEMs are the ones to be held accountable, not Microsoft. They have the final say on what a user sees.

Why do you think the Dell/Ubuntu ordeal is so big. They chose to give users the option to buy a Dell with Ubuntu over Microsoft Windows. If they chose to Pre-load OpenOffice.org, that would also be a big deal.

I think it is great that you want to bat down the big scary corporation, but you are swatting at the wrong one.

That is like swatting at the supermarket for the price of meat being so high, yet farmers are getting paid pennies a pound for that same meat. Usually the reason for this is because packing plants are the ones who inflate the prices, but most consumers don't realize this. We as consumers are quick to blame the wrong person. Still, Supermarkets should be quick to aid the consumers in trying to get the price of the product that they sell down.
punishment, there is NO problem on the OEM side. Now, for retail sales, MS must NOT leverage the monopoly to gain market share in search. Even if they only gain 1%, that is STILL illegal.
0 Votes
+ -
Consider this...
ju1ce 11th Jun 2007
Why would they pick other "defaults" to clutter your desktop?

Isn't there the beginning of a "movement" of people who are complaining to the OEM's about too much "pre-installed" software?
0 Votes
+ -
Not a beginning
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
That movement is in full effect.

However, consider the base desktop and what is and isn't require. Dell does have their "Jukebox" software installed by default. Other OEMs also have this. Regardless of whether they install it or not, Microsoft will have Media player, so installing a choice to Media Player is an option verses clutter.

And no, I don't like desktop icons either, but apparently if you delete too many icons, Windows likes to lock you out of various features such as Control Panel options.

I think that if Microsoft installs something, then it is perfectly acceptable to offer an alternative verses installing other wares by default.

There does require a certain amount of balance when selling a desktop. What good is a new CD drive if you don't have the software to use it? What good is a new camera if you don't have the software to use it?

There is also a difference between good and bad bloat. OpenOffice.org isn' adware and would be considered good. Antivirus could be handy, but the versions they use are unacceptable.
0 Votes
+ -
"However, consider the base desktop and what is and isn't require. Dell does have their "Jukebox" software installed by default. Other OEMs also have this. Regardless of whether they install it or not, Microsoft will have Media player, so installing a choice to Media Player is an option verses clutter."

Media Player is still there (which people will revert to irregardless of a Jukebox or anything of the like) and now you've just given me more clutter I may or may not want.

"And no, I don't like desktop icons either, but apparently if you delete too many icons, Windows likes to lock you out of various features such as Control Panel options.

I think that if Microsoft installs something, then it is perfectly acceptable to offer an alternative verses installing other wares by default."

That's great but I can't complete remove the object nor can I get rid of it.. So in one way or another I'm stuck with crap I don't want.

"There does require a certain amount of balance when selling a desktop. What good is a new CD drive if you don't have the software to use it? What good is a new camera if you don't have the software to use it?"

Well in those cases, I get the software with the product I purchase.

"There is also a difference between good and bad bloat. OpenOffice.org isn' adware and would be considered good. "

To me it's bloat. If I want it, I'll download it.

"Antivirus could be handy, but the versions they use are unacceptable."

Every version of anti-virus (even if they give you a free year) to me is bloat. Chances are it's Norton's and we all know how much Norton likes to bog down your computer. I've always gotten rid of the free year if I've received a new OEM computer.
0 Votes
+ -
However... with regards to some applications, we still live in a land where not everyone has access to broadband. Downloading a 90 meg Office Suite may not be in their best interest when using a 56K telephone line.

Some applications could be better served if they came uninstalled and on separate media. A restore disk without a separate OS disk should be considered barred from any vendor.

Sometimes we want the bare minimum. We don't need to load everything right off the bat.

I will agree with you on this as far as that is concerned.

Perhaps we need OEMs to consider going back to this way of doing things.
0 Votes
+ -
Google is the monopoly in search.
osreinstall 12th Jun 2007
Even though no court of law declared them yet. Maybe if Google would respect the privacy of the enterprise, they would get more customers and retain them. Besides MS search can be turned off. Google has no case. Also antitrust laws never get enacted unless the competition greases the hands of the DOJ.

Koolaid is particularly yummy lately, Donnieboy.
0 Votes
+ -
OEM Crapware
M.R. Kennedy 11th Jun 2007
ju1ce:

"Google would most likely have to pay the OEM's to get their's as a default where as Microsoft does not."

They already do. A friend of mine took delivery of a new Dell Inspiron E1505 a month or so back. Included as part of the crapware on it was the Google Toolbar.

I deleted it (among other things) from his notebook since it's a known vector for malware.
convicted UNANIMOUSLY by a 7 judge panel. You would think they would accept that and compete on the merits, and not try to leverage the desktop.
0 Votes
+ -
They are competing on merit when they integrate it into an O/S. Somehow that logic means something to them. I'm still trying to figure it out.

Competing on merit would mean they are both on similar footing.
0 Votes
+ -
We blame Microsoft too quickly, yet OEMs aren't taking discounts to keep Microsoft products as the default products on Windows systems.

I would be offering AOL a shot to put Winamp on, while asking Microsoft to cut my bill to keep Media Player as the primary choice. Winner takes my desktop. Same goes with Desktop Search.

Granted as a user, this doesn't mean a thing, but as an OEM, they have the decision on what a user sees by default.

I know that doesn't mean much, but why do users still keep loading other software to burn DVDs or CDs? Usually because the OEM installed it and because Microsoft's products are inadequate.
any reason for MS to leverage the monopoly here. The best would be to have no default, and let the user set it if and when he wants to.
Just curious?
0 Votes
+ -
Accountable for what?
ju1ce 11th Jun 2007
As a business it makes sense to have Windows installed with all defaults at no extra cost to the user and only a price chop on part of the OEM.

The only thing the OEM has to do is ship it out the door and avoid having to deal with 50 different software makers for default's on the OEM sold computer.

So is there really merit of the product irregardless of it being installed by default or not? The most savy users will choose stuff pre-installed or download their own software. For some it's adequate enough for others they want more.

IE vs Firefox.
Media Player vs iTunes
Media Player vs Real Player
Windows Search vs Google Search
Windows Firewall vs Every other firewall product.
Windows Defender vs Every other anti-malware product.
One Care (or whatever it's called) vs every other Anti-Virus.
Microsoft Office vs Open Office

The list goes on and on.

The question is (if people can actually go beyond the bias) would Microsoft really have received a majority use from it's products if it weren't attached to the O/S?

My first opinion would be no. Just based on the fact that you can ask anyone about internet explorer (who are the tech savy) and most will say it's "the internet". happy
0 Votes
+ -
I like the pinch point of the OEM
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
They are the ones who balled about Microsoft locking them into Internet Explorer, now they need to answer for Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, Windows Search, Outlook Express, and many more. The fact of the matter is that they aren't locked in, but they choose not to put the extra effort into pushing alternatives unless they consider it a money driven matter.

This is understandable considering the razor thin margins most get on building a PC. I still think that they can do more to change this matter. They can make Microsoft work for them, they just need to use better negotiation skills.
0 Votes
+ -
More capable operating system.
Anton Philidor 11th Jun 2007
Microsoft made the decision to add more capabilities and functionality to the operating system, rather than reduce the price to keep customers.

Media capability is an example of how that works.

The operating system itself includes the ability to play media, with WMP using those capabilities to provide media functions. Any other player can use the same capabilities Microsoft uses to provide functionality.

The advantage to Microsoft is that any other company can use those capabilities as part of an application which uses media only tangentially.


So how does Microsoft gain?

Customers do not have to worry about assembling media functionality. A new version of the operating system which avoids effort for the buyer is more worthwhile to some than the older operating system. Makes having the newer system a benefit, and Microsoft competes mostly with Microsoft.

Third party software providers have a simplified means to include functionality.


For Microsoft, a good sales point always trumps engineering. Or at least has to date.
0 Votes
+ -
Depends on your opinion
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
I think Microsoft does a very poor job in including media functionality. They don't have near the included Codecs required that other media players come bundled with. From a functionality standpoint, they can't be used as a proper jukebox because their memory requirements are too great.

If their product is so great, why to I keep seeking alternatives?

Although you are correct that having a good platform to build on is ideal. I think this is why we see OS X as creating their own set of tools to develop with and build better functionality.
0 Votes
+ -
I have XMPlay myself.
Anton Philidor 11th Jun 2007
Better sound. Though wma and the Player have been improving.

Microsoft does not appear to take the (free) player market too seriously. The capabilities are probably more important.

The minimal codec set you mention may not be a significant problem to the company, especially with licensing fees (cf mp3 legal case) an issue, because codecs can be downloaded as needed. Despite the proliferation of codecs, few are encountered.


On your other observation, I thought Apple developed tools for OS X because no other company thought sales sufficient foer the market to be worthwhile. wink
0 Votes
+ -
Look at Direct X
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
Microsoft has 99.9 percent of the desktop gaming market because they have the tools to build the games. Microsoft has most of the application base because of Visual Studio series of tools.

Microsoft has built an empire on platforms and now others need to try and bring themselves up to par.
0 Votes
+ -
But it's NOT just that...
Wolfie2K3 11th Jun 2007
Microsoft has 99.9 percent of the desktop gaming market because they have the tools to build the games. Microsoft has most of the application base because of Visual Studio series of tools.

Yes, Microsoft has the tools, but few programmers take the task of writing games for other platforms because of ONE primary reason:

There's NO MONEY in it.

It takes lots of time and money to build sophisticated games like the games you see on the market these days. To make their money back, they've got two options. They can build and market their games to the platform with the vast bulk of the OS market, ensuring there will be plenty of potential buyers for the game, or they can build and market their games for fringe platforms that have a really limited audience.

Few game distributers, let alone programmers are financially secure enough to build games that won't sell LOTS of copies. Nor are they so set financially to just give the game away either.

Unfortunately, even programmers like to eat, have a roof overhead, not to mention be able to afford to buy the latest and greatest hardware so they can put together even more amazing graphics and stuff in the next version of their wares.
Although I always claimed in the past that it was a few slick business tricks like
selling MS-DOS before they purchased QDOS to make MSDOS from and also
getting the rights to sell their own version of MSDOS as well as sell PC DOS for
IBM, another key point was their development tools.

Their platform was cheap and the tools were relatively cheap as well.

Infact, because of years of shoddy programming by 3 party developers and
extremely prevelant malware, we are now starting to see Apple come around and
wake up to how Microsoft got their power.

Apple will probably start to push their platform as a development tool more,
especially how they have shown how they pushed over to Intel processors with
such ease. I don't predict desktop domainance, but I do predict that Apple will be
pushing Microsoft into that "Non-monopoly" status.

Linux could have a shot, and probably would have if not for SCO and and the
community's own internal bickering.
0 Votes
+ -
Here are some "merits" for you:
GuidingLight 11th Jun 2007
Apple has a competing product (OSX)

Apple can bundle features into their OS to give consumers new capabilities

Why should not Microsoft be allowed to bundle features into their OS, to give their customers new capabilities?

Why should the fact that a corporation who wants to enter into a field in which Microsoft is already providing programs or features then be permitted to force Microsoft to remove said feature as this new company wishes to do it?

In one breath you claimn that Google is destroying Microsoft, and in the next breath you decry that Google needs help from the courts. Which is it?

Or are you afraid that playing on merits alone, Google has no chance of being anything other then an ad revenue search engine?
a monopoly. Antitrust laws do NOT apply to Apple. Apples small market share really severely limits their power to control the market for other products through bundling.
0 Votes
+ -
They don't?
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
Buy a Mac without OSX?

Buy OSX without a Mac?

Apple seems to have a monopoly on the Macs. Unless you consider the Mac a PC, and then you can't really call Microsoft a monopoly because then Apple has some desktops on the market which don't have Microsoft on them. This in turn doesn't make Microsoft a monopoly.
for their own products. You have to consider an identifiable market such as Desktop Operating Systems for instance.

Also, remember that you do not have to have 100% of the market to be considered a monopoly.
NOT just a particular companies products.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm... I win because... I say so and you are just mean.

Microsoft never had a full monopoly, but they were able to influence the use of other products by using their domainance of their desktop. It is also hard to measure what defines a monopoly when items such as linux don't always have a bill of sale.
is, and they voted UNANIMOUSLY to declare MS a monopoly. Funny thing, but MS chose to NOT appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, even though they had the right.

But hey, I really do feel for Billy.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry...
jasonp@... 11th Jun 2007
Apple doesn't sell PCs. Never have, probably never will. Of course Apple has a monopoly on Macs...it's their product. If Microsoft wants to have a hardware division and only sell it with their software they are perfectly able to do that. The problem comes when they leverage their monopoly on the desktop PC market to force hardware vendors into business decisions. Looking at the definition of a monopoly, it doesn't preclude any and all competition. "Monopoly - exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices". If you think that Microsoft can't control prices or the PC market as a whole, I've got some land in Florida I know you'd be interested in...
0 Votes
+ -
I can still build my own PC
nucrash 11th Jun 2007
And I have, and I could find another OS.
0 Votes
+ -
DonnieBoy:

Yep, I know what sign you were born under: Slow Children.

Have you not yet figured out that anyone can download and install the Google Toolbar (or the Yahoo Toolbar which, I believe, was first on the "market") on their computer? I haven't bothered to look, but I presume there are Linux versions available. I know there are OS X versions out there.

If you prefer the Google product, use it. If you prefer the MS desktop search feature (as I do--it's safer to use), then use *it*. But there's no need to get your ******* in a wad over some supposed "monopoly bundling" issue, because there isn't one.

Sheesh.
people will use it, no need to leverage the monopoly to gain market share.
0 Votes
+ -
There you go again...
M.R. Kennedy 11th Jun 2007
DonnieBoy:

There you go again, using terms you don't completely understand. You know, "leverage the monopoly".

If installing a desktop search function into an OS is "leveraging the monopoly", then Apple Inc. is equally "guilty".

If it was really that big a problem, Google should have gone after Apple, since Searchlight has been a part of OS X for years, before Google's desktop search application was even released.

Oh, wait a minute...a high-ranking Google executive sits on the Apple BoD. And, Apple owns a single-digit market share, while MS has how much of the market? 85%? 90%? Naw, we can't go after little old Apple!

Yeah, go after the deep pockets, to make your own pockets deeper. That's the ticket!
0 Votes
+ -
Another paid MS shill?
thungurknifur 13th Jun 2007
How daft are you?

The reason Apple is allowed to bundle, whilst M$ are prohibited is really simple:

MICROSOFT ARE CONVICTED ABUSERS OF MONOPOLY POWER.

Now how f@cking hard is that to comprehend.

And your second argument is so weak a 2 week old kitten could tear it to shreads.

You've got it all bakcwards.
What happens is, company X "innovates".
M$ sees it likes it.

If it's cheep they buy X , and integrate into Windows, Office etc.
Otherwise they make their own "innovation"; The same crap app, only named MS [something lame].

I can not think of ONE example of a company who has ripped off an MS product, started to GIVE IT AWAY (the only way to compete with stuff bundled with Windows), and THEN went to the Department of Justice to moan that Microsoft was driving them out of business.

Can you?

I beg your pardon but you're full of $h!t.....
0 Votes
+ -
Over the Top Reply
Aragorn7 26th Jun 2007
It's one thing to disagree with George, but it's another to add your expletives. When you're that angry, you can't always think clearly. George is hardly a shill. His article was not about how wonderful Microsoft is, but what they were doing in this case with Google and whether Google had a valid complaint.

Assuming your position on Microsoft is 100% correct (for the sake of this discussion) it does not, therefore, mean that Microsoft is always wrong in every instance. Because three out of five balls pulled out of a brown sack are black doesn't mean they're all black. Two could actually be another color. George was asking us to evaluate this case not what we think of Microsoft in general but on the merits of this specific issue.

I would implore you in the future to rely on the soundness of your stipulated arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. You won't believe how much more persuasive others will find you to be.

Respectfully
0 Votes
+ -
Your post have no merits.
xuniL_z 11th Jun 2007
The spirit of the "law" was never to disallow Microsoft from having useful features in their OS. That is unfair to the consumer, the people that the law is supposed to protecting?

Funny thing, nobody ever claimed their rights had been taken away, the governement and a group of companies who could not compete on their own merits told them so. That is wrong on so many levels.

And for Google to complain when they hold as many advantages against Microsoft as the other way around. At some point, the law needs to add a component of common sense. Google has no business trying to make their "desktop" a monopoly on everyone's machines. I've yet to see them give choice on their homepage for other desktop search engines over their own.
Ridiculous.
then they would make Google the default search engine since it is head and shoulders more popular than anything else. Instead, they want to make the default the distant third search engine that nobody wants.

Looks like MS is only trying to gain share in an unrelated area by leveraging the monopoly illegally.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix