backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Clienthes.. on Jun 22 at 5:46 AM

Microsoft and Google were able to reach a compromise over desktop search feature

The battle between Google and Microsoft rose to a new level after Google accused Microsoft of unfairly shutting companies out of Vista.  In a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice last December, Google claimed a Vista search feature violated Microsoft's anti-trust agreement with the U.S. government.  

The Vista feature is hard for users to disable and reportedly hinders the performance of Google's software with Microsoft's latest operating system, according to the complaint.  Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer recently described Google's complaint as "baseless."  

"We continue to comply with the consent decree we signed with the U.S. government in recognition to the findings around our position with windows," Ballmer said in response to the accusations.

Google's complaint occurred several days after Microsoft pressured regulators to investigate Google's acquisition of DoubleClick.

Even though the complaint was officially rejected by the U.S. Justice Department, several states were ready to support Google's position.  In the deal made with the DOJ and Google, Microsoft agrees to modify Vista so that third-party software is able to properly run on the operating system.  The change will be added to a Service Pack that will be available to users before the end of 2007.

The addition to the SP will allow users to choose a default desktop search provider, allowing the software to no longer be "slowed" by Microsoft.

"This agreement, while not perfect, is a positive step toward greater competition in the software industry," said Jerry Brown, California Attorney General.

While the companies were able to come to agreement, the case is not yet fully settled.  A judge next week will make an official ruling as to whether or not the deal between Microsoft and DOJ is fair to both parties.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

stupid
By Murst on 6/20/2007 5:23:38 PM , Rating: 5
Usually I'd be against MS bundling stuff... but this is an OLD feature of windows (at least since win2k). They just simply made it better. Google never complained about the search when it was horrible... but now that its actually good, all of the sudden MS is doing evil once again.

MS should not be prevented from making improvements to their software. Its like Norton taking MS to court because MS made windows more secure.

Also, the search feature is fairly easy to disable, and no different than any other service that runs in the OS. Why shouldn't MS have to put shortcuts in the start menu to disable every other service running on the OS? Oh yeah, google doesn't make a world wide web publishing service *yet*.




RE: stupid
By michal1980 on 6/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: stupid
By MPE on 6/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By michal1980 on 6/20/2007 6:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
me? anti big buisness. LOL. noooo.

i'm just not a fan of google. esspically when I see alot of people thinking that google is somehow a more ethical/nicer company then companies like microsoft or sony, or walmart

somehow google still has a small biz image...

And personally.. And it is just me, I'm always amazed that they make as much money as the do... after all most of google is just a very glorified billboard full of ad's.


RE: stupid
By OblivionMage on 6/20/2007 6:43:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, google has managed to get the image of the helpfull paladin, roaming the lands doing not but good deeds. While Microsoft is the evil dragon, burning down cities lest the civilians rise up against them and side with the Mighty 'apple' cult!


RE: stupid
By Proteusza on 6/21/2007 7:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Having just read about the rules for licensing Vista, I can safely say MS is still being a dragon.

I'm not allowed to transfer an OEM OS to another computer, okay fine. irritating if I want to change motherboards because MS will in all likelihood decide I owe them more money (when have they said no to extra revenue?).

The problem comes when I look at the option of buying the retail version. 3 times the price for one transfer. Its cheaper to buy two OEM copies. If it was an unlimited number of transfers (as it should be), then that would be okay? but one? That is just MS repackaging Vista and asking for 3 times the price, just stupid.


RE: stupid
By Spivonious on 6/21/2007 10:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Last I heard, it was one before you had to call them to reactivate. If that's anything like XP then you won't have any problems reactivating.


RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
So don't buy it. This is like everything else in life. If the cost is not worth the benefit don't buy it! A Windows OS is not a life necessity (aka food, water, shelter). If you don't like it do use it.

FYI.. I did the calculation and I don't use it. It is a fine OS, but it is just much not better than XP.


RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like it do use it.


Should be "don't use it"


RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 6/21/2007 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong. In today's society it is not an option whether to run a computing platform that supports certain software. "Today" you might get by running that software on Win2k/XP, but eventually you will not.

So it is not a "choice", unless you consider it in the same realm in even more basic aspects of life, extending the argument by the same logic we could claim that having electricity and running water is a "choice"


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
What - are you suggesting that running Windows is essential to life?!? You must have a pretty low opinion about the viability of OS-X and Linux. I personally didn't think they were that bad.

Sorry, but the choice to run apps that require Windows is still a choice, just like buying a car that uses gasoline forces me buy fuel from time to time.


RE: stupid
By MonkeyPaw on 6/20/2007 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, and it's funny how Firefox defaults to Google on it's search engine. In fact, Live isn't even an immediate option, you must add it on your own. Oh yeah, and what do Google's programs default to for their search engine? Does anyone expect to have Google's programs use a different search engine?

It's one thing if MS doesn't let you change them from defaults, but it's no harder than changing it in FF. To that, I say Meh.


RE: stupid
By Yawgm0th on 6/21/2007 1:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Firefox is an open-source freeware product owned and developed by the Mozilla Foundation, which is an entity entirely separate from Google Inc. Windows Vista is a software product developed and owned by Microsoft Corp. Firefox and Google is in no way analogous to Vista's search and Microsoft.

Live is not a default option in Firefox for two very good reasons:
1. Live search sucks, hard.
2. Internet Explorer, also owned by Microsoft Corporation, is Firefox's chief competitor; Mozilla is best off not aiding Microsoft in anyway unless it somehow helps Mozilla. Since, as mentioned, Live search sucks, adding it as a default option in Firefox wouldn't help Mozilla.

Microsoft could have done a better job with implementing the search features in Vista, but there's nothing anti-competitive about it. It just takes time and effort to program it to shut off automatically when another program replaces it, and doing so in no way helps Microsoft. This is simply a cheap shot in the Google - Microsoft war. It's certainly not a valid complaint on the part of Google.


RE: stupid
By Aikouka on 6/21/2007 8:28:29 AM , Rating: 3
But it is good to note that Mozilla has "ties" with Google.

quote:
But a windfall came in the form of a royalty contract with Google, which, like the other search companies, is always competing for better placement on browsers. Under the agreement, the Google search page is the default home page when a user first installs Firefox, and is the default in the search bar. In the last two years, the deal has brought in more than $100 million.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/yvukph (NY Times)


RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Internet Explorer, also owned by Microsoft Corporation, is Firefox's chief competitor; Mozilla is best off not aiding Microsoft in anyway unless it somehow helps Mozilla.


So it is ok for Mozilla to do this (just because it is free), but not MS? It is in MS best interest not to let Firefox run at all, but they do.

Absurd MS bashing!


RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/21/2007 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
They let Firefox run, at all, because they were fined and convicted of abuse of their monopoly the last time they killed it.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 5:57:41 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, the apps I write run on Windows just fine without anybody at Microsoft "letting" me write or run them.

In fact, Microsoft goes out of their way to encourage me to write apps for Windows by giving me excellent API documentation and cheap, powerful development tools. Writing apps for Windows is much easier than any other OS.

You guys in the anti-MS crowd really should work together to develop some ideas that actually make sense.


RE: stupid
By creathir on 6/20/2007 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
WHY ON EARTH WOULD MICROSOFT AGREE TO THIS!?

Why are they being so weak on this issue? They have EVERY right to make whatever feature they want. Period. People do not have to upgrade. Do not have to use the OS. Do not HAVE to install it. Google is no better than Netscape at this point in my opinion. I am looking forward to the day when Wallstreet WAKES up and realizes this company is just another bubble waiting to burst...

- Creathir


RE: stupid
By Samus on 6/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By Locutus465 on 6/20/2007 5:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
More accuratly microsoft is starting off in a weaker position and has much more to lose...