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.

Talkback Most Recent of 88 Talkback(s)

  • As much as I want to bash Microsoft
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • I agree.
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    donnellb
    11th Jun 2007
  • Well, when Google's CEO is on Apple's Board,
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • Remember, monopoly lasw ONLY applie if you have a monopoly.
    If you don't have a monopoly . . . .

    Microsoft is the only one here with a monopoly.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DonnieBoy
    11th Jun 2007
  • Anti-Competitive Behavior is such
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • Apple is less than 5% of OS sales, and the monopoly laws do not apply
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DonnieBoy
    11th Jun 2007
  • So....
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • re: Remember, monopoly lasw ONLY applie
    DonnieBoy:

    Thanks for including yet another of your "Microsoft is bad, everyone else is good" posts.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    M.R. Kennedy
    11th Jun 2007
  • Google & OEM
    They already do include Google Desktop on OEMs. Anybody buy a new Dell recently? Hello, Google.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rye_guy
    13th Jun 2007
  • I agree although the one issue stands...
    Google would most likely have to pay the OEM's to get their's as a default where as Microsoft does not.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ju1ce
    11th Jun 2007
  • Something can be worked out...
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • No reason to foot any bills, MS just needs to NOT leverage the monopoly to
    get an advantage in Search. Why is competing on the merits so hard for MS if they have a good search product?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DonnieBoy
    11th Jun 2007
  • Sometimes you need a business mind
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nucrash
    11th Jun 2007
  • I 100% agree, that as long as OEMs can pick the default, with not fear of
    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.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DonnieBoy
    11th Jun 2007
  • Consider this...
    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?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ju1ce
    11th Jun 2007

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

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]
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources