Perspective: Has Google actually read U.S. v. Microsoft?

In the latest clash of titans, Google has filed a brief with the federal court overseeing the consent order in the Microsoft antitrust case.

It argues that enforcement of the consent order should be toughened, and its duration extended beyond the current November expiration date. Because several states--including Google's home of California (ah, coincidence is wonderful)--endorsed the idea of an extension at the status hearing on September 11, and the judge is deliberating, the attempt must be taken seriously.

Google's objection concerns desktop search. Microsoft's latest operating system, Vista, has such functionality and, of course, Google is in the business of distributing a desktop search program, with particular attention to linking it with Google's global Web searches.

Google cannot complain that its desktop search does not run on Vista; it runs just fine. Nor can Google protest that its offering is somehow blocked; Vista permits end users and original equipment manufacturers to select an alternative desktop search program. Nor can Google claim to have been blindsided by the issue; Microsoft worked with Google and other companies along with various governments, on the search issue. For its part, the U.S. Department of Justice, along with most of the states, appears satisfied with the resolution.

So what is really going on in Google's collective mind? I think it boils down to a couple of things. First, Google and Microsoft are colliding as the tech world evolves, so disrupting Microsoft's plans is its own reward. Second, Google has a dominant position in general Web search. Integrating Web search closely with desktop search would reinforce and extend this power. An effective way to accomplish this is to force Microsoft to do it in the name of "fostering competition."

The weaknesses in Google's argument are that it has nothing to do with the original Microsoft case or with the purpose of the consent order, and that it does not relate to the conditions of the market that have developed in the years since the case ended.

The litigation determined that Microsoft had a monopoly over operating systems for Intel-based PCs. But having a monopoly is no offense under the antitrust laws when it was honestly attained by superior skill and foresight, and this was clearly true of Microsoft. Historian Martin Campbell-Kelly notes that as of 1985, two dozen alternatives to MS-DOS were offered by more than 20 vendors, many of them bigger than Microsoft. Microsoft won by being the best at meeting the needs of consumers and developers.

The only antitrust charge against Microsoft that survived was that it had acted to maintain its monopoly. In particular, it hobbled the use of "middleware," which was defined as software that could serve as a bridge between applications and the Windows operating system. In accord with the crucial role played by Netscape and Sun Microsystems in persuading the Justice Department to bring the case, Navigator and Java were singled out as examples of middleware.

The government's theory was a sort of double bank shot--if enough application writers chose to link to middleware rather than to Windows itself, then the middleware programs could take all these apps with them and decamp to link with some other operating system, which would then provide competition to Windows.

Biography
James V. DeLong is special counsel for Kamlet Shepherd & Reichert. He is also vice president and senior analyst for the Convergence Law Institute. The opinions expressed here are the author's alone.

More Perspectives

[microsoftprincess]

Response

I think this comes down to Google trying to make any waves they can to attack Microsoft. I agree that the clash between these 2 corporate giants has been growing, and now that Bill Gates has removed himself for philanthropic focuses, Google seems to be upping it's angle of attacks. Will be interesting to see how everything plays out in the future.<br /><br />-Melanie Gass

[sokorie]

Mee - too arrogance doesn't cut it

Google wants to be the next Microsoft . <br />But doing it by making a lot of NOISE about nothing and looking for help from U.S and State Governments . Google should stick to SEARCH technology and see if it can come up with a compelling technology to de-throne Microsoft fair and square. Google is just another Microsoft wanna-be . Come up with your own Operating System and compete fair and square. Stop crying about NOTHING .

[NickH]

Is Desktop Search Middleware?

In fairness, the article asks the same question, but it doesnt seem to me to repesent a platform for application development that would allow apps to move wholesale to another OS.<br /><br />I always thought that calling a browser "middleware" was something of a stretch. Yes, excellent applications can and are written that use the browser as a platform, but even the best web apps are along way short even average desktop apps.<br /><br />Of course, we are perhaps now seeing the start of something interesting going on between Flash/Flex and Silverlight. These technologies have the potential to do something in the browser that can seriously challenge the desktop.<br /><br />And Silverlight (esp. 1.1) can be viewed as nothing more then a .NET CLR and WPF for the browser. .Net as a whole IS a serious chuck of middleware. Ok, its cross-platform ability is extremely limited (all respect to Mono, but its not quite there yet). Silverlight is available for Windows and Mac, and Novell/Mono will get it working on Linux.<br /><br />I'm no ardent Windows fan. As a developer, I am a big fan of .Net. I, and other developers I know, are already along way down the road to seeing .Net as the platform , not Windows. Silverlight is therefore an extremely intriguing proposition to me - if I can build next generation web apps with the tools I already know extremely well, AND it works on Mac and Linux too, you bet I'm going to use it!<br /><br />There are legions of .Net developers out there. If existing .Net apps ran on other OSs, they WOULD be run on other OSs. Decent middleware DOES have the potential to undermine Windows monopoly. <br /><br />Ironically, it might be one of Microsoft own free/bundled technolgies (Silverlight/.Net) that becomes that middleware.<br /><br />(As for Java, I think the reason that it hasnt succeeded as a Windows-monopoly-challenging-middleware, is that it didnt ever place any effort as running as well as possible on the dominate OS, Windows. Another huge double irony, Microsft tried to make Java really focused on Windows in order to protect their OS, and Sun stopped them!)

[Penguinisto]

The Java Saga in short:

[i]"(As for Java, I think the reason that it hasnt succeeded as a Windows-monopoly-challenging-middleware, is that it didnt ever place any effort as running as well as possible on the dominate OS, Windows. Another huge double irony, Microsft tried to make Java really focused on Windows in order to protect their OS, and Sun stopped them!)"[/i]<br /><br />Some items of fact that may help explain what happened w/ Java:<br /><br />* Java is slow and complex. <br /><br />* MSFT did its level best to make sure Java ran very slow on Windows, if at all. Then they tried to make their own MSFT-owned and controlled version of it (J# - which still exists). See also these links for clarification:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/2009-1001-215854.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/2009-1001-215854.html</a><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/2100-1001-251401.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/2100-1001-251401.html</a><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/23/javajam.idg/index.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/23/javajam.idg/index.html</a><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_2_4/ai_53592897" target="_newWindow">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_2_4/ai_53592897</a><br /><br />So, as you can see, history shows that java, which once "scares the hell" out of Bill Gates (I'm quoting him directly) was literally pushed out of Windows.<br /><br />/P

[patrickjn]

Internet Explorer Interferes with Firefox

A few months ago, Microsoft upgraded my browser to the latest version of IE7. Since then, whenever I call a URL, IE7 interferes, and loads itself first. I have identified FireFox ans the preferred browser, but IE7 ignores that. Firefox loads after IE7, and provides the same URL. I have consulted gurus, but no one has an answer for cleaning up the mess. I cannot just delete IE7, because some web sites require it (Microsoft, for example). I cannot get IE7 to remain dormant when I call a URL. It certainly looks as if Microsoft is trying to horn in as the primary browser, and exclude FireFox. Isn't that why the government brought anti-trust action against Microsoft in the first place - restraining other software vendors by agressive action?

[taoman1]

A few points

First off, Microsoft didn't install IE7, you did by turning Automatic Updates on. Secondly, you have a weird problem, not the result of some conspiracy by Microsoft. Now to try to help you: Did you try uninstalling Firefox and reinstalling? That's all i can think of. That is a very unusual problem

[crazynexus]

idea

Format/Reinstall!!

[picomos]

new gurus needed

have IE7 and firefox<br />only time IE7 launches is when I call a URL in IE7...

[gwsewell]

GooGle vs MST

"But having a monopoly is no offense under the antitrust laws <br />when it was honestly attained by superior skill and foresight, and <br />this was clearly true of Microsoft."<br /><br />Someone else needs to read the decree.

[NickH]

Here are the findings of fact.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm</a><br /><br />Have a read. It wasn't about illegally aquirying a monopoly, it was about illegally maintaining a monopoly. Not a lesser crime, but certainly a different one.

[Penguinisto]

Strange Days Indeed.

Setting aside the bad premises in the opinion (MSFT certainly did not get to the top "fair and square" - see the OS/2 v. Windows debacle for one of numerous examples as to why), MSFT was rightly convicted of violating anti-trust laws, and for good reason: When you force OEMs to carry only your OS, when you abuse your existing dominance to muscle out all competition just because you want to introduce your version of a given app (see also the demise of Netscape Navigator, Word Perfect, et al), and when you make your OS inaccessible to competing apps feature-for-feature, then you are rightly guilty of violating anti-trust laws.<br /><br />Technically, this article is wrong. the OS won't be reduced to just "a few lines of code to connect peripherals", and only a blatantly ignorant or misleading shill would try pushing that theory. OTOH, the OS may become a commodity, in that future applications won't be tied to any specific one. Problem is, MSFT is doing its level best to insure that the OS still remains relevant. While that in and of itself is not illegal, breaking compatibility and subverting protocols and standards are. <br /><br />MSFT has made a point for roughly a year now of fingering Google as its primary enemy. MSFT has taken steps to insure that Google has a hard time of it on Windows. Google is merely responding to this. <br /><br />So, why is this article even published? If the allegations are false, then the courts will decide as such. We don't need some MSFT-paid shill to try and convince us, the public, as we have no influence in the outcome of that decision. OTOH, FUD and the Court of Public Opinion is different... and this article reads straight out of MSFT's playbook for marketing.<br /><br />/P

[NickH]

More detail please!

[i]MSFT has taken steps to insure that Google has a hard time of it on Windows.[/i]<br /><br />This is a genuine question, I'm not saying you're wrong. But what *exactly* has Microsoft done to ensure "has a hard time of it on Windows".

[Jim Harmon]

A few lines of code

[i]Technically, this article is wrong. the OS won't be reduced to just "a few lines of code to connect peripherals", and only a blatantly ignorant or misleading shill would try pushing that theory.[/i]<br /><br />Certainly someone with your knowledge of computer history can easily recall that back in the days of minicomputers, the terminals had almost no operating system loaded on them. Just about all it had was a bootstrap ROM that connected it to the network. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the author here had that in mind while writing that section of the article.

[pmchefalo]

Strange Logic Indeed - Shill ALERT! Shill ALERT!

Since you write with a psuedonym, it is hard to judge your credentials.<br /><br />You certainly know nothing about history. <br /><br />The citation of OS/2 proves that. OS/2 was a sloppy piece of software produced by an IBM determined to keep its monopoly on mainframes, and to extend it to the PC market being opened up by challengers like Compaq. Their insistence on GDDM code compatibility in a desktop operating system, the emasculation of the Intel processors of the time, when combined with their inability to deliver workable IDEs to develop third-party apps, resulted in IBM's own PC division's decision to turn its back on OS/2.<br /><br />The force used by Microsoft against OEMs was marketing incentives, not unlike the product placement dollars used by Apple (now THERE's a monopoly) to get their machines into movies and TV shows. That and investments in tools for developers (Visual Basic is the "democratic" example) and tools for hardware manufacturers (DDK) led to the defacto monopoly. <br /><br />If there was an OS alternative to Windows that would have increased bottom line results for OEMs, they would have taken it. The article cites twenty alternatives at the rise of Windows to dominance; and that has risen to dozens if not hundreds of OpenSource alternatives today. The actual "beef" was about the ability of OEMs to corrupt (IMHO) the Windows experience by adding bloated/unworkable alternative shells, and non-Windows compliant software to the startup environment, in return for marketing dollars from other companies, in addition to the Microsoft marketing dollars and the benefits of Microsoft's hardware compatibility investments.<br /><br />Netscape Navigator died simply because there was no reason ever to buy a license, and they had a completely unresponsive sales team. I tried as a consumer to buy a license several times, and could never really get to a page that allowed me to send the money that would guarantee a viable license for any version. Navigator was always in beta: I don't pay to license beta software, even now. <br /><br />If Netscape was really able to leverage its offering to the extent they planned (application platform, middleware) there would have been a monopoly that would have made Microsoft look benign; however, broadband developed too slowly to make their platform viable. (See Google as the logical successor ...)<br /><br />Google DOES NOT have any problem with Windows. You prove you are a Google shill if you keep saying that. Google would have NO market if it was true. If fact, Google is simply a parasite on Microsoft's back. They produce software first and primarily that runs on Windows, and throw a bone to OpenSource and the Mac once in a while.<br /><br />So who pays you, Mr. Black and White, to comment on every article on C|Net? And the world is NOT as black-and-white as you make it, it has many shades of grey that you do not reflect.<br /><br />The writer in this article has obviously done his homework, and you have nothing but shill arguments to offer in response.

[BIGELLOW]

The average user

The problem has to do with the average user. The average user, unfortunately, is not as bright as the readers or writers of this website, for instance. A study was done where people were directed to the US Census Bureau's website and were asked to find the current population of the US. Despite the fact that the website had, in huge font in the upper-right-hand corner, a population clock ticking away, many subjects in the experiment clicked around, tried searching, or left the website to perform a search elsewhere.<br /><br />In general, the typical computer user only has a limited understanding as to what some boxes do and what certain actions are expected of them. Some will type search terms in the address field of the browser (so the browsers were eventually adapted to allow this) and others visit a search engine and type the URL into the search box.<br /><br />Given this behavior, since Microsoft has integrated desktop search into Windows, even though they "allow" other manufacturers to override the defaults, they don't necessarily "allow" manufacturers to hide the search box in Windows entirely. So, while Microsoft may no longer be heavily competing with the search engine functionality itself, they ARE heavily competing with the physical real-estate within Windows. Take IE7, for instance. There is no natural or known way to make the favorites "star" hidden. So, any third party bookmarking service (for instance, the one in the latest Google toolbar) must compete for this same screen real estate. When a typical computer user sees two different "bookmark" icons on their screen, it's a crap shoot regarding which one they will think to select, or if they will even truly understand that one is Microsoft's and one is Google's.<br /><br />So, if a third party company wants to implement a desktop search application within Windows with an innovative search box, it ends up being a duplicate search box... with Microsoft's search box still hanging around. While both search boxes can be configured to use the same service, each search box could end up with different behavior. This would result in a bad user experience that the user might attribute to the search engine servicing the results, rather than attributing it to two competing entities, one which is using the monopoly of the operating system and not giving up their screen real estate.<br /><br />In my humble opinion, if Microsoft wants to truly "play fair" in the competitive market, they should allow the search boxes within Windows Vista to be hidden/removed entirely, in favor of another search box... and they should allow the favorites toolbar to be hidden/removed in IE7 in favor of a third-party bookmarking toolbar. I would also like to call attention to the fact that when IE7 loads, it loads without third-party toolbars and then, after a second or so, the third-party toolbars appear. This didn't happen in previous versions of Internet Explorer. In other words, you see the screen real estate Microsoft wants you to see first... then, after some delay, they show you the third-party stuff. This is, IMHO, another anti-competitive move on Microsoft's part.<br /><br />Keep in mind that I am coming at this from a perspective as a consumer. I don't want the bookmarking "star" there on my screen, in IE7. IE7 allows me to turn off the menus, and all toolbars... EXCEPT the bookmarking "star". Why? My guess is that this is the next feature Microsoft is pushing on the typical computer user, and is hoping to get people even more entrenched on eventually using Microsoft's online services.

[zboot]

I've already responded to this very idea on another story

So, where does it end? What if I like Google's search box but hate the way they display their results. Shouldn't google be forced to allow a 4th party app to redirect their search results into a format that I like? This argument is ridiculous. Searching one's files has been part of the MS OS for a long time. There is no reason for them to have to disguise or hide their search box in favor of another. If someone wants that much choice, then they should use an OS that gives them that choice. It is NOT MS's place to provide that. If I made the only car that levitates and it used some engine of my own design to do so, I am not obligated to provide a means for users to switch the engine to something else they may like. Doesn't matter if I have a monopoly on levitating vehicles. It is my vehicle, my design, and you are buying it. That is all. <br /><br />Arguments like this are ridiculous. What's next, I don't like the way this book publisher prints his books, consumers should be given the option of having a third party take the text and print it on alternative formats?

[PzkwVIb]

You are jumping at shadows

I would expect most software to load core components first and then plug-ins, like third party tool bars. That is just good sense and sound programming practice, not a conspiricy.<br /><br />And, personally I hate it when anyone hides options from me. Hiding the MS options is stupid, as a user I want to know ALL my options, period.

[TanNg]

Bad knowledge about UI

The purpose of UI is for USERS not competitors. You want average user get confused with different favorites icons, menus, toolbars just for the benefit of MS competitors? This is why MS competitors lost, they are not fighting for users, they are fighting for their position on the screen.<br /><br />Remember ODF battle, IBM want a document format that not compatible with .doc document. They dont care about user, they care about politics.

[JCPayne]

Google stop complaining and go make your own O/S

Or else release Goobuntu to the public...<br /><br />---<br />Goobuntu<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu</a><br /><br />*Goobuntu* is a Linux distribution based on Ubuntu that Google uses internally. Some have suggested that Google might plan to market the distribution more widely.[1][2][3] While both Google and Ubuntu's creator Mark Shuttleworth have confirmed that Goobuntu exists and is used internally,[4] both have strongly refuted suggestions that Google has any plans to market the operating system.[5]<br /><br />Mark Shuttleworth has confirmed that Google contributes patches to Ubuntu but noted that while some Google employees use this modified version of Ubuntu, others use modified versions of other Linux distributions. Google has supported Ubuntu through the Ubucon conferences and in other ways. Although Shuttleworth and Google representatives have denied any plans to release Goobuntu outside the company, it has nonetheless inspired ongoing speculation about Google entering the operating system business.[http:// . . . |http:// . . . ]

[Jart351]

Google & Ubuntu

Please Google pick up Ubuntu (Linux) and run with it, I already use GWT and most other Google API's with it. If they did that would leave MS$ in the dust.

[Penguinisto]

Google already uses Linux...

...to run their server farms. MySQL is (at last report) their main <br />app do do all the database work for their search engine (and <br />damned near everything else, I believe).<br /><br />Not sure what distro they use in the majority though (I'm <br />thinking a RedHat variant myself).<br /><br />/P

[FutureGuy]

Google = Hypocrisy

Google is one of the most hypocrite company in existence. On one had Google is the biggest promoter of open source, but jealously guards its own sources, not a single one of Google?s core products are open source. How about releasing its search engine code, I would love to start my own with it, the open source community might even be able to help improve it, that doesn?t work huh, might hurt profits. Google wants MS to make it easy to use its search engine in IE (which is already that way), how about doing the same in FireFox, everyone know Google bankrolls Mozilla. If you think Google is any more then a company out to make money in every way it can and destroy any other company that can prove to be a competition then you are wrong.

[Info_Max]

Europe will also restrain Google Monopoly - because it is a democracy

Europe is not fighting yesterdays war. It is fighting tomorrows war indeed. But Europe would have had to 1st penalize Microsoft for acting against the interest of European people, <br />before it can do the same against other US information processing monopolies, such as Google.<br />I mean would it have made any sense at all for EU to go after Google monopoly of search information<br />before having gone after Microsoft monopoly of desktop. Of course not. So this reporter does not<br />at all understand the grand strategy at play here.<br /><br />Now why is Europe fighting monopolies. Because monopolies are not good for people.<br />And as a real democracy its government bodies<br />place the well being of their people ahead of maximizing profits for big corporations, which<br />is what the US government is in business of doing. As the ultimate evidence of this consider the<br />fact that American people don't EVEN get Universal health care or Universal Education. Whereas Europeans do, as a result of which they are getting wealthier &#38; healthier all the time compared to Americans. Which point you can clearly see as per the falling Dollar compared to Euro. <br /><br />Now we do not need to rely on the government alone to check in the dangers that monopolies pose to <br />all of us. We the people can and should also act to check them in. That is why I recommend these:<br />For desktop OS switch to Linux<br />For database switch to MySQL<br />For search engine switch to Anoox

[Draxon]

You didn't even mention googles argument

I have to wonder what financial ties you have with Microsoft, or if you did not even both to research Google's complaint.<br /><br />Google's problem with windows desktop seach isn't that it blocks Google's but that its impossible to turn off. <br /><br />Imagine in the Netscape days if Microsoft ingrained IE even more, so that it launched every time windows started and you could never truly close it, always eating resources. Running google desktop search in vista means your constantly indexing your HD with two programs, making google search have a severe disadvantage. <br /><br />"even though it is better is it worth tying up twice the resources?" which is why I dont use desktop search for my vista machine. <br /><br />disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Google, just get fed up with seeing biased or under researched articles up on CNET.