Microsoft is "committed to openness," snickers its general counsel

Wow. Microsoft is nothing if not brazen. When you think of Microsoft you normally don't think of these words, at least not together, yet these words came from Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, in response to Google's complaint that a Microsoft and Yahoo! tie up would be bad for the Internet:

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet.

Microsoft? Committed to openness? Microsoft has been committed to destroying openness over the years, and Brad Smith has played an integral role in that strategy, defying the US Justice Department and the world's consumer. I think highly of Brad, but I find this guile to be galling in the extreme.

Google is exactly right in calling out Microsoft's cheek:

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.

It could, and it absolutely would given the chance. Microsoft is currently using Sharepoint to lock in and lock up enterprise IT. It's the same playbook that Microsoft has always used.

This is not to paint Google as the savior of the Internet, but rather to remind us that the only reason Microsoft is complaining now is because Google, not Microsoft, has 75% of the market for Internet search. If that were Microsoft's market share, we'd hear nothing from Mr. Smith about openness. We'd hear nothing at all. Just the sound of the dollar bills being printed in the billions.

[robvme]

You sound like a bigot

[evil__donkey]

No, you do.

[GaraSys]

Microsoft's past history does suggest that they will gladly create lock-in any time they can in any market they can. That's not to say they're all bad. Microsoft has done plenty to advance the state of personal computing and make it available to as many as possible. For that they deserve credit. However, their commitment to openness now does seem a bit suspect. If they were really committed to openness, they would open up the source to Windows, Office and other products instead of constantly trying to corner every dimension of the PC market.

Of course, as you said, Matt, it's not MS that owns 75% of the search market, it's Google. Despite their motto of "doing no evil" I'm not so sure that's a good thing. I for one would like to see them face a bit more competition. I was hopeful Yahoo! could stand up to them alone.

[YouTool]

What a pathetic little worm you are, Matt. It's called COMPETITION! Considering the fact you are a lowly journalist, it's evident you haven't lived or worked in a competitive landscape. Don't try to equate desktop dominance with Internet openness. They are incongruent.

[MyRightEye]

Well done Matt, a journalist who's not afraid to speak truth to power. Ignore these other M$-bought-and-paid-for pawns.

[jeromatron]

YouTool:
You are correct in saying that desktop dominance and Internet openness don't have much to do with each other on the surface.
However, what Matt and Google both are driving at is, look at SharePoint and IE. Microsoft has proven that unless forced to do so, it will create its own standards and expect the world to follow. For example, the other day on our corporate intranet, I tried to export a contact list to a file from our SharePoint server. I use a mac. Well, I couldn't - it requires a compatible client-side application. I do have MS Office 2004 for the mac but it apparently doesn't suffice. I am left to wonder what openness is gurgling underneath SharePoint to prevent it from exporting a simple contact list to an open format or even a delimited text file.
Consider Internet Explorer. Microsoft is currently under investigation in Europe for not implementing open standards and how that affects the browser landscape.

[cb3431]

Isn't the point of American business to grow and dominate? Isn't that why we have countless Starbucks in one shopping center?

Microsoft's goal is to grow its search business and buying the number two search provider is the smartest move to make. Didn't Apple buy the company responsible for OS 10?

I find it interesting that people expect Microsoft to play by a different set of rules.

Can Microsoft really be faulted for playing the game better than its competition? Does Wal-Mart care when it opens a store in a small town and forces local businesses to close?

[georgiarat]

Microsoft is a predator, has been and always will be. They eat those not as big as they, intimidate the rest, and will send surrogates to nimble at those it can't consume. They have added very little to the advancement of IT. If anything they have impeded its progress by years.

An all consuming Google is no better than an all consuming Microsoft. The digital world creates opportunities not found in previous industries outside of railroads, steel, and automobiles. Supporting Google blindly is a mistake. Supporting Microsoft is not only a mistake but a tragedy. They have fought standards (other than their own), fought open source (unless they co-opt it), and suckered the rest.

It is ironic that Bill Gates is now trying to buy is name back after all those years of destroying others. This is not competition. It is exercising a a monopolistic position for gain.

[rcrusoe]

"Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet."

That's great news, I'll add it to the list

"The check is in the mail"
"Of course, I'll respect you in the morning"
"I promise I won't . . ."

Yeah, right.