Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Files EU Competition Complaint Against Google

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the turn-about-is-fair dept.

EU 205

bLanark writes "In an amazing about-turn, the bully has turned into the bullied. Microsoft, having been on the receiving end of many anti-competition lawsuits, has filed a complaint with the European Commission, saying that Google is using its market dominance to prevent Microsoft from gaining market share."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Boot, other foot (3, Insightful)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676926)

No real surprise here. Exactly what happens in the school playground when somebody turns round and finally stands up to the class bully.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676960)

Not sure if you saw this... made headlines around australia... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDG2ae3PSVI&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s [youtube.com]

Re:Boot, other foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677202)

From what I've read, the principal made the usual cowardly move and punished the kid who got bullied instead of the bully.

Unfortunately that's how it always turns out because most teachers are cowards and prefer to look away until they are forced to get involved. Punishing the bully at this point would be admitting their own faults, so they go after the victim.

Re:Boot, other foot (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677098)

How ironical, TFA says "making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube".

This coming from the company who grew up on "embrace and extend" practices. Today the only reason why I have dual boot is because some websites that I must access will not work on any Linux browser.

Re:Boot, other foot (0)

devchaos (2029956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677176)

And slashdotters again show their stupid digg-like comments by going all crazy about how Google is just better than Bing, while this whole story has nothing to do with either ones search engines but other products. Sigh...

Re:Boot, other foot (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677278)

You're the same moron who posted below.

Let me quote for you:

"...claiming Google systematically thwarts Internet search competition....Microsoft claims Google engages in a "pattern of actions" that unfairly impede competition. Google controls more than 90 percent of the Internet search advertising market in Europe, well ahead of Microsoft's Bing, which is struggling to make inroads into Google's market share."

We're discussing the article. This whole story has nothing to do with any products other than their search engines.

Re:Boot, other foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677292)

Er, Google is better than Bing. [eweek.com] The head Bing guy in charge admits it. Furthermore, they admit it with their actions [searchengineland.com] . I mean, wholesale copying Google's results. Yeah, that really makes me confident in their product. Or, maybe, Bing is a sad joke and I'll just keep using Google as it is, face it, the superior product.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

buchanmilne (258619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677356)

Well, the story linked to has the summary:

(Reuters) - Microsoft Corp stepped up its rivalry with Google Inc with a formal complaint to EU antitrust regulators, claiming Google systematically thwarts Internet search competition.

No other part of the article make a statement about what the complaint is about. So, I fail to see how slashdotters are stupid. Maybe the author of the article was (intentionally?) misleading?

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677646)

No other part of the article make a statement about what the complaint is about. So, I fail to see how slashdotters are stupid. Maybe the author of the article was (intentionally?) misleading?

Did you get to page two? The fourth to last paragraph pretty much spells out the six things they're on about ... most of it is related to search.

It isn't true that no other part of the article makes a statement about what the complaint is about ... here it is:

Specifically, the complaint charges that Google hurts competition by "walling off" content on its YouTube site, so other search engines can't display accurate results; by making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube; by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored; by not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft; by blocking websites from using competing "search boxes"; and by making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677684)

I'm sure Microsoft would *never* use their dominance in other things to try and sneak the Bing toolbar into your machine, right?

Oh, wait ... they've added it to everything in sight! Everything you could possible download and install from Microsoft will try to sneak it past you.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678056)

I'm not sure if this is a mistake or intentional but Bing is the default search for Win 7 and IE 8 in the toolbar. Now according to all the documentation, replacing it with Yahoo or Google is as easy as Right-click on the triangle and selecting Find More Providers. But all that does is load google's homepage on your active tab. Searching online only shows the same documentation. Only after careful research do you find a link on Microsoft that allows you to do it.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677246)

This coming from the company who grew up on "embrace and extend" practices. Today the only reason why I have dual boot is because some websites that I must access will not work on any Linux browser.

Not even with wine + IE ?

Re:Boot, other foot (2)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677426)

Using Internet Explorer with Wine is not legal, you need a Windows license.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677984)

To be fair, they no longer make their premier enterprise groupware suite unusable on other browsers; the very latest version is actually functional in chrome. So its not QUITE as hypocritical as it could be.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678134)

if it were not for the ignorance of the politicians and judiciary, this would be funny. So Microsoft goes on the attack after Adobe because Adobe(via Flash and Acrobat Reader) is the only company left with the same preload channel partners as Microsoft has for their Windows OS. Google has a video service they bought which runs off either Flash or HTML5 using the open source decoder WebM. Now Microsoft is crying because they claim they are being locked out of YouTube?

At least this isn't yet in the US court system since the EU has shown to be far more capable of understanding basic tricks and techniques Microsoft uses.

nope, not April 1st either. too funny.

LoB

Re:Boot, other foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677226)

You know, it just blows me away how MS can go around pretending to be the good guy and actually sometimes convince people that it is true. What about paying off the ISO? What about tying in internet explorer to the OS? What about Sendo? What about the continued abuse of their desktop OS and Office monopoly? What about patent bullying? Suing Linux by proxy (hello SCO)? Rent seeking in the mobile space?

And for all of the supposed innovation MS has brought to personal and business computing, what have they done that hasn't been done before or that they haven't just bought wholesale from someone else? The only reason any of their products other than Office and Windows are "competitive" is they buy marketshare. XBox still hasn't made a dime in the aggregate. Zune, Kin, Bing, WindowsPhone, all propped up with monopoly money.

And now they have the gall to play the victim. It's disgusting.

Re:Boot, other foot (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677830)

Poor, poor, Microsoft. Everybody say "Awwwww"...

Kudos to Google.

Butthurt (0)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676928)

Microsoft is butthurt & quickly becoming irrelevant, news @ 11.

pwned (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676930)

Teeheehee. Methinks Google is actually using superior products to prevent Microsoft from gaining market share.

Re:pwned (1)

linux_geek_germany (1079711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676962)

Need a new law against making superior products!!

No, no, no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677406)

--Google is actually using superior products to prevent Microsoft from gaining market share.

Google is *INNOVATING*. Let's get it right.

(They going to add a ham sandwich to Chrome next!)

Almost makes you want to feel pity for Microsoft (1)

seniorcoder (586717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676932)

Just a bunch of bullies endlessly fighting for world dominance. Nothing to see here, business as usual (literally).

Re:Almost makes you want to feel pity for Microsof (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677044)

Except here it's a case of Hitler complaining about annexations and racial discrimination.

"Re:Almost makes you..." GODWIN ALERT (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677208)

Except here it's a case of Hitler complaining about annexations and racial discrimination.

And just like that - we go from feeling sorry for Microsoft to feeling sorry for this posters.

Re:Almost makes you want to feel pity for Microsof (3, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677778)

Except here it's a case of Hitler complaining about annexations and racial discrimination.

He did. "Mein Kampf" is basically one long diatribe about how Jews were trying to destroy Germans, and how Germany's areas had been forcibly taken and annexed to other countries. The last part was actually true, which is part of how Hitler managed to get power.

All of which, BTW, makes an excellent answer to anyone who says "world is not fair, deal with it": the more unfair the world is, the easier it is for the next Hitler/Stalin/Mao to get into power and start World War 3. So go ahead, cut those unemployment benefits and social security, if you feel lucky. Well, do ya, punk?

Re:Almost makes you want to feel pity for Microsof (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678022)

So go ahead, cut those unemployment benefits

Im not really clear on how not giving unemployment benefits has gone from being "how the world works (dont work, dont eat)" to "its unfair, i deserve this". The program has its good points, but when people start feeling entitled to it, perhaps its a clue that its gone overboard.

Queueing Downfall video ... (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677800)

Someone's got to make one.

Please?

Bing (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676944)

How can MS claim Google prevents MS from gaining market share when Bing is using Google search results?
Without Google, Bing would have even less market share.

Re:Bing (0)

devchaos (2029956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677160)

Are you fucking stupid? This has nothing to do whatsoever with Bing.

Re:Bing (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677254)

Did you fail to read the article? This complaint is over the internet search competition (from both M$ and one of the companies owned by M$). I don't know how more plain it could be than that, unless you didn't know that the Google search engine was owned by Google, and Bing is owned by Microsoft.

Re:Bing (2)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677520)

From TFA:

"Specifically, the complaint charges that Google hurts competition by "walling off" content on its YouTube site, so other search engines can't display accurate results; by making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube; by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored; by not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft; by blocking websites from using competing "search boxes"; and by making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online."

Re:Bing (0)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677540)

BTW, your username is awesome. Made my day!

Re:Bing (0)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677296)

It has been discussed before, Bing is NOT using Google's results. The algos are optimized in a similar manner often yielding very close results. MS have their own crawlers, search engine, database backends and the latest version of Bing seach is very competitive.

Re:Bing (4, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677402)

What about Google's test where they created false search results for random strings of words, then saw the same first results come up in Bing? There's no algorithm there.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677634)

Clickstream data. The page it was coming from was irrelevant.

Re:Bing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677802)

Those people at Google had a Bing toolbar installed and agreed to allow it to track their searches. The toolbar reported home that people were searching for a certain string and this was added to the search results.

Re:Bing (4, Informative)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677462)

The results was EXACTLY the same, not similar. The fact that they pertained made up search terms that would never had been indexed by either Google or Bing normally cemented the fact that it was wholesale stolen results directly from Google Search.

Re:Bing (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677384)

How can MS claim Google prevents MS from gaining market share when Bing is using Google search results?
Without Google, Bing would have even less market share.

Because Microsoft figures it's up to Google to keep handing them everything Google has as a competitive advantage so Microsoft can have equal access to it. Some of the stuff is utterly absurd:

Specifically, the complaint charges that Google hurts competition by "walling off" content on its YouTube site, so other search engines can't display accurate results; by making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube; by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored; by not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft; by blocking websites from using competing "search boxes"; and by making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online.

So, First, Google are mean because they have a popular site and haven't made it easy for competitors to use that content (YouTube).

Next, either Microsoft failed to implement something that worked with YouTube, or YouTube is actively trying to make it tough for a Windows Phone to display stuff. Let me guess, the phone only supports WMV files? ;-)

Not giving access to data owned by someone else -- I mean, wow, how dare you not let us access someone else's stuff because that gives you an advantage. Seriously? If this data is owned by book publishers, why does Google have to make it available to Microsoft?

My personal favorite .... I believe that they're whining about the terms of service for the data. So, they want Google to collect it, and then let Microsoft combine that with other data they have, and then use it on their own web sites so they can compete with Google. WTF does Google gain by collecting data for its competitors?

I'm not sure I follow the last one about competing search boxes. I mean, if you're using Google ads, I can see they want you to be using a Google search ... they don't want to sell you advertising clicks, and then have any searches you do get sent somewhere else. Just because Microsoft was forced to allow different search engines and browsers from within their OS doesn't mean that I want to see every web site allowing me to pick the search engine to use.

I don't see this as any legitimate complaint about antitrust behavior. Microsoft has lost the ability to compete in some areas, and they mostly seem to be whining that someone should force Google to make the same data available to Microsoft, which makes no sense.

This reminds me of "energy retailers" we have here ... some genius decided that the power company was a monopoly, and opened it up for a bunch of little companies to essentially re-sell the same stuff as the power company and called it competition. All it really did was to create a bunch of shady companies whose only goal is to convince you to "switch" energy companies and sign up with them for a contract duration. They show up at your door saying they're the "energy company" and try to get you to sign on the dotted line at "locked in rates". (I had to throw one out of my house because he lied to my wife and said he was from our energy company, and we needed to replace the piping for our furnace and get a new hot-water heater.)

There's no actual new competition, and in many ways the consumer is actually harmed by this because the companies can be a bit dubious. But, we get the illusion of a somewhat open market, which makes certain people happy. I fail to understand why letting the parasites sell the product of another company under the guise of "competition" does anything other than create middle-men since these companies don't do anything related to power except to re-sell it.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678048)

My personal favorite .... I believe that they're whining about the terms of service for the data. So, they want Google to collect it, and then let Microsoft combine that with other data they have, and then use it on their own web sites so they can compete with Google. WTF does Google gain by collecting data for its competitors?

The way that I read the complaint, it sounds more like Google is blocking users from taking their data and moving away from Google. If I was a Google analytics user, you better believe that would make me angry. It's my data, and I should be able to use it however I want. Or do you like proprietary data formats, designed to lock competitors out?

Re:Bing (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678074)

So, First, Google are mean because they have a popular site and haven't made it easy for competitors to use that content (YouTube).

Like Exchange and OWA-- it would be terrible if Thunderbird or Evolution had 3rd class access to MAPI, or if alternative browsers couldn't search or flag or set out of office replies in firefox or chrome on OWA 2003 or OWA 2007. Terrible, I tell you.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678148)

If YouTube is deliberately structured so that search engines without inside knowledge (i.e. everyone but Google) can't effectively index it then that is anti-competitive and, given Google's near monopoly on search, possibly illegal. Just because Microsoft has indulged in foul play in the past, Google doesn't get a free pass.

I'm sorry, there's a reason to switch? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676970)

Yes, I'm sure they can and will continually tweak the system but it's, well, pretty damn good. What this means is that barring some huge and amazing shift in computing, the best Bing can do is match Google, and in that case, what would be the point in switching?

Re:I'm sorry, there's a reason to switch? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677068)

Well, you switch because people game google because thats where most people are searching. Nobody is making their website Bing friendly, so they may be able to achieve better results than a billion landing pages with their own search results on them.

So they said ... (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35676980)

"We tried everything, we pushed our search with our browser, we pushed our browser with our os (which you foiled btw - ballot box), we tried sniffing the best result from google for a query from the users of our browser, but we still failed. Please help us"

is it ....

Re:So they said ... (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677234)

It seems to be mostly about Youtube -- they claim Google is restricting access to Youtube data in an effort to ensure only Google can have the best video search results. I don't know if it's true, and with Google's constant mantras about openness I hope it's not, but it doesn't sound like MS has much legal ground to stand on even if it was -- why not sue Joe Blogger for not giving MS access to data on the people who leave comments?

They make an interesting claim that Google is giving Android an unfair advantage by somehow preventing Microsoft from making a kick-ass Youtube client for Windows Phone 7. (as a WP7 owner, I can attest that their current effort is terrible)

This second claim really makes no sense, because there are already full-featured unofficial Youtube apps in the app store. Obviously they get their data from somewhere, so the only thing possibly preventing MS would be some terms of use on whatever APIs are available.

Re:So they said ... (3, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677416)

Woops, I meant to include a link to this blog post [technet.com] at Microsoft that explains it in more detail. It seems Youtube isn't all that they're complaining about.

They're claiming Google is trying to gain exclusive rights to out-of-print books, which prevents Bing and others from searching the content. I seem to recall the latest Books proposal involved non-exclusive rights, so I guess someone didn't get the memo.

And finally they've got a beef with Google Ads. On the advertiser side, Google isn't allowing advertisers to share any data gleamed from Ads with anyone non-Google. On the user side, Google is disallowing competing search bars from being embedded on websites that display Google Ads. Microsoft wants to get its Bing search bar out there, and Google is making it tough.

And that's how licensing works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677674)

And that's how licensing works with copyrighted works. You ask for, and pay, for rights to the copyrighted works. They are only your rights. Otherwise I could complain of DelRay for getting exclusive rights to the books they publish and tell the courts to give me access to their printing rights too.

There is NOT ONE THING stopping Microsoft from going to publishers and asking for rights to out-of-print books. They'll have to pay and agree to a licensing agreement.

But, despite the INSINUATION (if you look at the old records of the complaints at the time, you'll notice they didn't say that Google had agreed to an EXCLUSIONARY contract, like, say, the regional importer gets for trademarked Levi jeans for example). The rights google got were for google, but there was NO exclusionary requirement.

Microsoft just want Google to have paid the time, effort and money for the licensing and then sponge off it.

Re:And that's how licensing works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678144)

Of course Microsoft, or anyone, can go to the publisher and ask for rights, that isn't what Google is doing.

Google is getting or trying to get rights not just on OOP books, but on orphaned books as well. If that deal is finalized, Google doesn't have to go ask and/or pay for the rights, but gets some rights by default and a copyright holder has to go to Google and opt out if they don't want Google to distribute their works.

Re:So they said ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677838)

And finally they've got a beef with Google Ads. On the advertiser side, Google isn't allowing advertisers to share any data gleamed from Ads with anyone non-Google. On the user side, Google is disallowing competing search bars from being embedded on websites that display Google Ads. Microsoft wants to get its Bing search bar out there, and Google is making it tough.

But allowing people to take Google's data and then give it to someone else basically violates Google's terms of service, and more or less says that they expect Google to gather this stuff, but then give it to Microsoft to incorporate into their own stuff. Why should Google be forced to provide their competitors with the stuff they want to use to make money with? Why is it Google's problem to give Microsoft the tools they need to compete? Does Microsoft give people the source code for the Windows kernel so people can write competing operating systems?

On the user side, Google is disallowing competing search bars from being embedded on websites that display Google Ads. Microsoft wants to get its Bing search bar out there

Well, if you're paying Google for adwords, or using Google to put ads on your site and make money ... why should you then be able to have a Bing toolbar? Google pays you to display ads and then you do your searching on Bing?

I'm sorry, but I just fail to understand why Microsoft feels that it is up to Google to give them the data and tools needed to be a competitor.

Competition means you get to put out a product and hope that people use it. Large numbers of people have decided they don't give a crap about Bing, and aren't using it. Now Microsoft is acting like it's Google's job to help foster adoption of their search engine?

Re:So they said ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678168)

Well, if you're paying Microsoft for Windows, or using Excel to make money ... why should you then be able to have a Google browser? Microsoft runs your computer and then you do your searching on Google?

Just figured that I'd give you the reverse scenario. Google can say 'Don't be evil' all they want--their current advertising practices seem designed to keep anyone else out of the space.

Re:So they said ... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678120)

Microsoft wants to get its Bing search bar out there

Any "unfair monopoly leverage" claims MS might have had are lost when they bring up the Bing bar or anything to do with Windows Live, as those are pre-installed on like 80% of computers (by monopoly leverage, in fact).

Re:So they said ... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677480)

"...why not sue Joe Blogger for not giving MS access to data on the people who leave comments?"

Because Joe Blogger does not have a monopoly. I don't think it gives Android any advantaje, but they aren't claiming something that absurd.

Re:So they said ... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677840)

They make an interesting claim that Google is giving Android an unfair advantage by somehow preventing Microsoft from making a kick-ass Youtube client for Windows Phone 7. (as a WP7 owner, I can attest that their current effort is terrible)

Because MS has been ohhh so helpful in cracking open their own formats so competitors can create solid compatible products without having to reverse engineer everything.

Re:So they said ... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678100)

They make an interesting claim that Google is giving Android an unfair advantage by somehow preventing Microsoft from making a kick-ass Youtube client for Windows Phone 7

Interesting as in bogus, maybe. My Blackberry (a "strictly business" phone!) has no issues getting on youtube and playing video. This is a phone whose browser is liable to lock up on any serious kind of javascript, and where cameras are generally a concession. If RIM can get it right, its kind of hard to have sympathy for anyone who cant.

Re:So they said ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678126)

It seems to be mostly about Youtube -- they claim Google is restricting access to Youtube data in an effort to ensure only Google can have the best video search results.

Does Microsoft make sure that all of the stuff on MSDN is available to their competitors or people who just want to use it? Do they try to make sure that I can use all of their Silverlight crap from a Firefox browser?

Boo hoo, YouTube is popular, and therefore Microsoft figures that content site should be bending over to make sure that other people can use it. It's not like the stuff on YouTube is some public commons that everybody should be able to make use of ... just because it's hugely popular doesn't make it a shared resource.

For all that Microsoft likes to be a proprietary shop, they're selectively saying that Google should open up the stuff it owns so that Microsoft can play with it too.

Evidence? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677004)

Specifically, the complaint charges that Google hurts competition by "walling off" content on its YouTube site, so other search engines can't display accurate results;

First time I've heard of this. Evidence please?

[...] by making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube;

Evidence?

by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored;

I bet the book publishers have something to do with that.

by not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft;

Because private data ought to be public?

by blocking websites from using competing "search boxes";

Really?

and by making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online.

News to me.

Re:Evidence? (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677070)

DAMN that was some exhaustive analysis there!

Re:Evidence? (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677258)

DAMN that was some exhaustive analysis there!

I too am impressed by Mr. Anonymous Coward's post. Shocked that he wasn't aware of many points in the article he so rightly chose to question. I mean we are talking about THE Anonymous Coward here. Forthright in all he observes. Diligent in his pursuit of the ultimate truth.

Please everyone forward your comments to Anonymous Coward before submitting to Slashdot in the future. No need for logged in users to critique any longer. We have a true learned one among us.

Re:Evidence? (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677302)

Wow. Some dude with an ID of "Dot.Com.CEO" is complaining about someone pwning MS's complaint? I think the GP post pretty much summarizes the complaint and it's validity.

Re:Evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677992)

by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored;

I bet the book publishers have something to do with that.

This kind of makes me chuckle a little. Google has to settle for $125 million (or something in that range) and be constantly reviewed on the legality of the issue (too lazy to post links) so that Microsoft gets free access and indexing of that information? Doesn't anyone see a slight correlation here between this and file sharing that the *AA's are so quick to jump on?

So is this MS's Chief of Strategy Craig Mundie's (2, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677006)

new plan? Don't worry about tablets - we will just cry to governments that we are getting our lunch eaten?

Re:So is this MS's Chief of Strategy Craig Mundie' (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677194)

new plan? Don't worry about tablets - we will just cry to governments that we are getting our lunch eaten?

Hey, worked for General Motors.

Re:So is this MS's Chief of Strategy Craig Mundie' (4, Funny)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677498)

That said, GM did well to not worry about tablets.

Re:So is this MS's Chief of Strategy Craig Mundie' (0)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677638)

Why not? Microsoft already got in trouble in Europe for doing the same thing. From some of the stuff I've read, they have a valid complaint (if true) that Google is doing exactly what Microsoft got busted for.

I'm still amazed at how many people worship Google and think they behave like angels.

Re:So is this MS's Chief of Strategy Craig Mundie' (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35678186)

Microsoft has been doing what Microsoft got busted for for the last 15 years. (Is IE rendering engine removable yet? Didnt you just do a complete rewrite of windows? SURELY you addressed that complaint...)

Google behaves a heck of a lot better than MS; they actually make it easy to pick up your data and go somewhere else. Try that with hotmail-- have they enabled free-for-all pop / imap yet, or does that still come with a fee? Microsoft operates within a mentality of "lock things in and make it hard to leave". Theyre getting better due to pressure from the market, but Google has avoided lockin from the get-go.

Karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677026)

Karma is a bitch that slaps you violently - IN YOUR FACE.

I tried.. (1)

Keruo (771880) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677028)

I tried [bing.com] to find some evidence to back up Microsoft claims regarding this matter using Bing, but sadly no results were available.
Oddly enough, [google.com] google yields something when same term is entered.

Re:I tried.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677142)

I see what you did there. Cute.

Re:I tried.. (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677336)

What's funny. If you actually do the search "Find me some evidence that back up claims, that google has monopoly in search engine business." on Bing, there is no mention. So maybe he just made a typo.

Re:I tried.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677340)

Yeah... I don't get it. I assume it's supposed to be a joke, but yes, leaving the Bing search box empty and clicking search does produce nothing, but that's not what the GP claimed.

Re:I tried.. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677410)

Same experience here. Used the default IE/Bing settings when setting up a Windows machine for something I'd searched earlier and was surprised I couldn't find the same results I'd found earlier ... and these were common reference facts from a large company. I tried a few more side by side comparisons and found Bing ... lacking.

weird tautology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677036)

"using its market dominance to prevent Microsoft from gaining market share"?

Isn't that a tautology?

"They are using their popularity to remain popular"?

Bad timing for Google (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677050)

If only MS had files such a complaint during the GWB presidency. Given his DOJ's hard-on for letting convicted monopolists off Scott-free (Microsoft), I'm sure Dubya would have leaned on the EU on Google's behalf. After all, completely unregulated markets are the epitome of efficiency and public good.

Lets deal with MS first eh. (3, Insightful)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677078)

Google are no angels, but compared with MS they are.
MS make a closed operating system and closed software for that closed operating system. How is that not anticompetitive? (I know this doesn't just apply to MS). It was even found as such in court, they where to be broken in two (a OS business and a software business), but then they got out of it!
MS bully the OEM to force Windows on us, and those of us free of them, end up paying more to not have it!
MS where given a monopoly by IBM from the get go and have maintained it with every trick in the book, and a few new ones they came up with themselves. Many of which come under "dirty trick". I could rant about MS and standards, but it's old ground everyone knows. Even the MS fan boys must be able to see Goolge are less bad by a order of magnitude or two, even through the MS cool aid vision. It Google do go properly evil, we can just change search engine, big deal. Many people aren't ready or able to change OS, in fact they are often deliberately locked in.

Re:Lets deal with MS first eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678214)

Free is even worse, there is nobody going to compete, innovate or improve against "free". Mediocre at best.

Thats Buisness (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677114)

This is how business works. Microsoft should be used to it. stop crying.

Why? (1)

l33t gambler (739436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677120)

Bing is default search option bundled with Internet Explorer, which is default browser bundled with Windows. At work, almost everyone doesn't bother switching back when something have changed their search option. I make sure they have the option to run Firefox and Chrome, but even "free" cannot compete with bundled in the long run.

PC games are still mostly for Windows and with this, Microsoft would surely have their Windows monopoly well protected for a long while. Unless someone (EU) forces them to make the customer choose the search options at first run instead of providing a quick default setup with Bing.

Re:Why? (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677522)

Interesting question:

It's pretty obvious that M$ is/has attempted (succeeded) to use it's monopoly to control and take advantage of markets.

Google seems to be running into trouble because of it's success, but has it been trying to use that to keep competition out? (We need to take some things into consideration, like the publishers (not authors) objecting on what google was going to do with the scanned book titles.

Now that's fresh (1)

gmelis (1501569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677130)

"Specifically, the complaint charges that Google hurts competition...by making it difficult for Microsoft's mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube; by blocking access to content owned by book publishers which Google has copied and stored; by not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft; by blocking websites from using competing "search boxes"; and by making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online". Aha, so that's what's wrong with video on windows phones! Then why is it that mine works just the same on vimeo and youtube? How exactly can someone block a website from using competing search boxes? Expensive for competition... now that's a strange one. I bet all google customers are just begging google to raise their prices, but they don't budge. "No, I won't lower my prices; *you* raise yours!!!" That's all that competition is about. Ah, and all this book data you gathered and stored... don't forget to give me full access to this. We don't have the time and patience to do our own homework, ok?

Remind me again (5, Insightful)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677154)

Which of Google's products don't have dozens of competitors right now?

Which of those products has a barrier to entry beyond writing and putting it on the web?

Which competitors have Google actively shut down? (This does not include being better or more popular.)

Did everyone forget that Yahoo was #1 in search not too long ago? That Google took the #1 spot with no advertising? That another company is free to do so if they can come up with a better product?

Google fails every test for a monopoly. I have no idea why people are continually calling for anti-trust investigations other than jealousy.

Re:Remind me again (1)

jimmy_dean (463322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677186)

I agree and think your comment is well said.

Re:Remind me again (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677284)

(I think you're supposed to express interest in his newsletter ... it's a tradition)

Re:Remind me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677488)

Think a few years back:

Didn't Internet Explorer have lots of competitors?

Which of those competitors has Microsoft actively shut down? (This does not include being more popular (having more market share).)

Did everyone forget that Netscape was #1 in browsers some time ago?

And the EU forced Microsoft to introduce the browser ballot. Maybe they feel there are some double standards here. (There certainly are here on Slashdot...)

Re:Remind me again (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677966)

Didn't Internet Explorer have lots of competitors?

Nope, it had a few "browsers" that were just fancy shells for the IE rendering engine, Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix & Opera and neither of those were bundled with every copy of Windows sold ever and set as the default web browser.

People forget that being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's being a monopoly and *using* that position to gain advantage in an area that you don't have a monopoly that's illegal.

Re:Remind me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678234)

Nope, it had a few "browsers" that were just fancy shells for the IE rendering engine, Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix & Opera and neither of those were bundled with every copy of Windows sold ever and set as the default web browser.

People forget that being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's being a monopoly and *using* that position to gain advantage in an area that you don't have a monopoly that's illegal.

And Google has used its search monopoly to gain advantage in other areas. There used to be many more general purpose searches for finding products. Google decided to create froogle, then incorporated those results into their base google search and added a link to see more items. Most of the shopping sites have been killed off. Some were better then Google, but Google was 'good enough' and immediately there as soon as you did a basic search so.

Microsof suing for anti-competitive behavior? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677182)

Can everyone say, "O Teh Irony"?

What is bullying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677190)

the bully has turned into the bullied

Or the other way around if you see the filing of complaints as the bullying and the using of one's ability to win as a fair tool in trying to win.

What's the matter Microsoft... (3, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677196)

... your products not good enough to compete and gain marketshare when you can't use a monopoly to force people to use your products?

Pot calls kettle black (2)

BigDaveyL (1548821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677204)

News at 11.

But... does the case actually have merit? (0)

seanellis (302682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677526)

I've seen a lot of knee jerk MS-is-evil stuff (this is Slashdot after all) but what are the actual facts of the case? Just because we don't like someone doesn't mean that they can't be right occasionally.

We're supposed to be geeks here - rational, logical, all that jazz. Let's base the arguments on the facts.

Re:But... does the case actually have merit? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677702)

Rational and logical don't get your posts modded up when Microsoft is involved.

Re:But... does the case actually have merit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35677824)

well as it was pointed out in Murdoch vs. Google, "he doesn't have to allow his newspaper sites to be indexed, that's what robots.txt is for!" - I don't see why google is under any obligation to even let bing index youtube.

If you can't beat Google in the marketplace (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677572)

"Microsoft .. has filed a complaint with the European Commission, saying that Google is using its market dominance to prevent Microsoft from gaining market share."

Translation: We can't beat Google in the marketplace lets go after them in the Courts ..

Re:If you can't beat Google in the marketplace (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677976)

MS has never been able to beat any search giant since it started trying to push it's variants on the MSN web portal starting in the mid-90s (this after nearly having missed the whole Internet boat anyways, at the last possible moment attaching the Windows for Workgroups winsock libs into Chicago to produce possibly the worst socket implementation in history). They spent years forcing a link between IE and their web portals, with anyone who dared to use another browser getting brain-dead output. Redmond still had this view that they could sell the Internet and Windows as one single product, even as competitors from expected and unexpected directions began to fragment the browser market again. Suddenly, not only did Microsoft have to fend off the son-of-Netscape, it had to deal with all those smartphones with all their browsers, and then Apple and Android coming along to assure that IE would never ever again be a dominant browser. Then, suddenly, just a few years ago, they tried rebranding their web services with "Live" which hit the ground with a thud and barely a ripple. Then, just to show a bad idea is always worth trying again, they rebrand Live as Bing, and, well, not much. Google is still king, IE's numbers are diminishing on the desktop, and if you take into account all those iPods and Android phones, and iPads and tablets, IE probably looks even worse.

So, to recap, Microsoft after a decade and a half of trying to create the web presence that would kill all the competition, has failed at every single turn, and now, as it becomes clear that they will never accomplish the goal, they suddenly find themselves in the boat that they put Dr. DOS and Netscape into, they want a court to reverse their shitty decisions.

"the bully has turned into the bullied" (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677624)

Whatever do you mean?

Since when did google ever do any bullying?

Oh, you mean Microsoft?

They're just bullying in a different way now.

For what it's worth (1)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677974)

A friend of mine, working for German "youtube": myvideo.de complained, that youtube is keeping advertisement prices artificially low (remember Google complaining that youtube loses money?).

Tell me this is not anti-competitive.

Microsoft, show os the Details, PLEASE (3, Interesting)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#35677986)

Microsoft story is that:

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

YouTube does have a robots file http://www.youtube.com/robots.txt [youtube.com] which asks not to index some parts of the website. This should be allowed. I have a robots.txt file on my websites. If you send a spider loose on my servers and ignore it then I may -j DROP you. If you send a spider to my sites and disobey it then I'll also -j DROP you. If you visit the hidden-linked /spider-trap/ then PHP scripts will begin to die('gfy') from your IP. I think this should be allowed, and I am strongly against anyone who wants to dictate who and what I allow on my server.

If Microsoft just thinks YouTube's robots.txt is too restrictive then they can go fsck themselves.

Now, on the other hand, IF Google is serving different pages or denying pages based on Microsoft's spiders user-agent then that is something completely different. That's EVIL. EU and others should strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger if they are doing exactly what Microsoft was exposed doing to Opera on their Hotmail service a few years back (yes, they really did serve broken pages to Opera-users based on User-agent).

I would very much like to see Microsoft give out actual technical details on what they believe Google is doing that's so bad and unacceptable. Loose blah blah "google bad" text is not at all helpful, they should show us the technical details behind their claims. It's not that hard. Opera did this when Microsoft intentionally sent Opera-users broken pages when visiting Hotmail, it's actually quite easy to do.

Not forcing manufacturers of PC's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35678076)

Google is not forcing computer manufacturers to require google search on every machine that they sell, like Microsoft used to do. I purchased several windows licenses for machines that I used for OS/'2 (that initially included a windows license that I paid for again).

To this day, I do not use Microsoft products unless I absolutely have to, because I don't like their business practices. I do use XP in VirtualBox on my Linux desktop so that I can use my Livescribe pen and use Epocrates on my Palm Treo, but if it weren't for those to things, I wouldn't use windows at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?