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 Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the play-fair-or-i'll-tell-mom dept.

384

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."

cancel ×

384 comments

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

Well if anyone knows... (5, Insightful)

lisany (700361) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822202)

If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (4, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822222)

Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
Sweet, sweet irony.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822684)

I would have thought it was sweet, sweet vindication.

The tubes are real and Google is fluoridating them! The Feds knew all along!

Re:Well if anyone knows... (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822752)

Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
Sweet, sweet irony.
I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (4, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822832)

It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now.
Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
or
"Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool" ?
But your point is well taken.
Can't let the bugbear-as-messenger become a distractor, for all the idea of "shooting the messenger" never seemed more appropriate.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (5, Insightful)

Knave75 (894961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822390)

If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate [wikipedia.org] their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?

That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822458)

If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. Worse, I expect to see a bunch of small companies coming out of the woodworks who will cry about Google abuse. Then the money will be traced back to MS on the vast majority of them. Lost in all that FUD and fakery from MS probably will be a couple of companies that do feel like they can not take on Google. IOW, the multitude of lies and FUD from MS will serve to obscure what is really going on.

I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822794)

If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly.
I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation. I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through. The only reason I'm starting to belive Google isn't doing evil things in the OEM bundling business is because that monopoly is already occupied. Google has seen their chance in the online ad business and they'll do anything in their power to build a monopoly there. But sure, you just go ahead and point fingers at Microsoft.

Re:Well if anyone knows... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822834)

Moreover, simply having a monopoly isn't illegal. Only using that monopoly in an anti-competitive fashion is. Google, for all their dominance in the field, just go about their business. The only way they make it difficult for competitors is by doing it better than their competitors can. The complaint doesn't list any abuses of that monopoly on the part of Google, it only says they'll control a too large a piece of the ad market.

And, because we all need our daily slice of irony...the "Wah...Google will have a monopoly" complaint was filed by Microsoft in the form of a Microsoft Word Document!

Re:Well if anyone knows... (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822854)

In tried and true /. tradation: "You must be new here." Microsoft=Hell Bill Gates=Devil Steve Balmer=??; Google=Heaven Tux=Jesus CmdrTaco=God. Got that?

MS is just seeking parity (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822436)

Well, the EU seems to have created an entire subset of laws which just apply to Microsoft, so it only seems fair that MS would be saying "hey, wtf, why are we being singled out?".

We are about to see the harvest of the bitter fruits the FOSSies have been growing the past few years. They so desperately wanted the government to step in to tech matters, rather than letting consumers decide what they wanted... and now we are all going to be screwed over when governments start regulating issues which should be in the hands of technology groups and consumers.

Good job, FOSSies. You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS rather than what they actually wanted. My prediction is that people STILL won't want FOSS, so the net result is, as usual, the consumer gets bent over the barrel.

Re:MS is just seeking parity (3, Insightful)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822584)

Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.

Re:MS is just seeking parity (3, Insightful)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822588)

You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS

Got any references for that?

MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.

Re:MS is just seeking parity (1)

dzelenka (630044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822602)

Good lord, how did this get modded up to "Insightful"? It must be some kind of sugerplum hangover.

Re:MS is just seeking parity (2)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822788)

Good job, FOSSies. You've damned us all


Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!

Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?

Re:Well if anyone knows... (5, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822472)

Did the kettle just call the pot black?

Pot & Kettle? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822210)

I've been following this for some time. I can't be bothered to type out the whole post, but my blog can be found here [contactlog.net] with interesting comments too.

Re:Pot & Kettle? (3, Informative)

snoyberg (787126) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822272)

Everyone please ignore this post, it's another stupid myminicity thing...

Re:Pot & Kettle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822748)

It's modded -1; if you had not mentioned it nobody would have seen it. Thank you very much for bringing myminicity to our attention again.

Re:Pot & Kettle? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822278)

you should visit the guy in fohootville. he will give you a lesson in slashdot trolling

Re:Pot & Kettle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822416)

it looks like he retired from spamming his city... I went there and read the board.. fohootville.myminicity.com

Re:Pot & Kettle? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822356)

I've been following this for some time. I can't be bothered to type out the whole post, but my blog can be found here with interesting comments too.
Your 'blog' says

Your Flash player is outdated. Click here to install the latest version
You should remove the Flash requirement. Cheers.

Re:Pot & Kettle? (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822550)

Or flash, for that matter.

Re:Pot & Kettle? (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822644)

I should have included the quote above my post:

You should remove the Flash requirement. Cheers

Hello (1)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822236)

Hello kettle? This is pot. You're black!

Re:Hello (1)

Ec|ipse (52) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822264)

Exactly what I was thinking.

Re:Hello (2, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822302)

Does it make their claims wrong?

Re:Hello (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822426)

Possibly, It was fishy so it should be looked into, but MSFT can't compete in a fair market. Take a look at their product line up, other than MS Office, and Windows every other line is doing mediocore and many are losing money heavily.

The better question is how you can have a monopoly in Advertising anyways. It's not like you can't buy airtime, newspaper, magazine, or interweb ads from dozens of locations.

Re:Hello (1)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822462)

Not in and of itself, No it doesn't. But it does make MS look like a bunch of whiny cry babies that want to take their ball and go home!

Re:Hello (2, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822542)

I don't necessarily think that their claim is wrong, or anyone making the same claim. However, what I may disagree with, is how MS comes up with their numbers and results. MS is known to pay think tanks and such, as well as their own internal research to make sure the results skew in the direction they want it to, whether its noting that there is now competition in the OS market to law makers, and at the same time posting results for their shareholders that they have a stranglehold and a guaranteed revenue stream.

The only results I will believe are from true third party's, and that goes for anyone, not just MS

The pot calls the kettle black... (1)

Franklin Brauner (1034220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822240)

I like how their charts are made up of "Tubes."

PDF created on a Mac, hosted by nytimes.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822802)

Did anyone else notice that the diagram PDF [nytimes.com] that supposedly "Microsoft created" and which the newspiece links to was in fact created on a Mac (OSX 10.4.11, using Quartz), and is hosted by nytimes.com?

I just don't see the connection (3, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822244)

How is teaming with an online marketing company giving Google quite the stronghold that MS actually has? I mean- it's not like this means Google owns the billboards and television commercials.

Confidential (4, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822248)

Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?

Re:Confidential (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822338)

Anyone else notice it was created on Mac OS x; "Mac OS X 10.4.11 Quartz PDFContext"

Re:Confidential (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822354)

Confidential: everything you see has to stay within the observable universe.

Re:Confidential (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822724)

Yeah, when I noticed that, I promptly closed the PDF after reading the first three pages. ;-)

Too bad so sad. (0)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822256)

If Google and the other boys wanna sue Microsoft for everything, its only fair that Microsoft be able to do the same. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Too bad so sad. (1)

Mishra100 (841814) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822382)

I just couldn't imagine being paid the amount of money an investigator makes and sit all day and snoop on another company. It just seems wrong from any stand point. Lawsuits are good for making sure that justice is served so I do agree that if Microsoft sees a problem, they should take it to the courts and defend it. If Google is breaking the law then they need to be dealt with.

Turtle Monopoly (2, Funny)

stevedmc (1065590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822266)

I am still waiting to see someone claim that "mother earth" has a monopoly on turtles. Btw, I like turtles.

Re:Turtle Monopoly (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822292)

Oh come on, that was funny.

Re:Turtle Monopoly (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822508)

Oh come on, that was funny.

It is actually, MicroSoft Fear and Terrorism at it's best. Now give me a PC without Microsoft tax.

PC without MS Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822756)

Ok, Simple. Here's what you asked for. [apple.com]

Re:Turtle Monopoly (2, Funny)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822646)

I am still waiting to see someone claim that "mother earth" has a monopoly on turtles. Btw, I like turtles.

It's obviously a vertical monopoly. Because -- as everyone knows -- it's turtles all the way down.

Microsoft should know this (0, Redundant)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822296)

I mean, they are experts on this territory you know...

Ah, yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822304)

...competition is a monopoly.

I wonder if Microsoft is the way it is because its leaders' minds are warped, or vice versa.

Microsoft knows (1)

Daver297 (1208086) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822306)

If anyone knows a Monopoly it's microsoft, however I really don't see the connection on how it gives Google a STRANGLEHOLD on the industry

Re:Microsoft knows (5, Funny)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822386)

Microsoft could defeat Google in this arena by bundling Firefox+Adblock with their operating system :)

Re:Microsoft knows (1)

Daver297 (1208086) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822706)

but wouldn't that affect Microsoft's Monopoly with IE? ;)

Missing? (1)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822312)

I noticed that MS left off their "share", Or is it so minuscule as to not show?

Re:Missing? (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822408)

Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.

What NERVE! (0)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822326)

It's disgusting that they even dare express any comment. What's next? Apple has a monopoly on hand-held touch-screen multimedia players?

Re:What NERVE! (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822742)

I agree that comparing one "monopoly" to another is rather non-sequitur. And I don't even consider either company's market share to be a monopoly per se, although MS is doing its damnedest to retain its market lead at all (conniving, even borderline illegal) costs.

The difference is in the origin of the market lead: Microsoft is successful today only because of one act - indoctrination: it was conniving enough to wean an entire generation of first-time computer users by making damn sure that, whoever bought a computer, windows would be the first thing they saw. Google, on the other hand, was just one search engine like another in its beginnings, and even today it doesn't come pre-installed (as a default page) with any browser; it became famous because people ~chose~ to use it. It's only the after-effects of fame that are similar: it's only natural that developers chose to "make for the majority". This still does not a monopoly make.

Microsoft should be scared shitless, as although it has 90% of the OS market indoctrinated, it still has a sub-rate product. Google, on the other hand, is arguably the best search engine out there, and its ad-distribution system is acclaimed and even sworn by everywhere. Of course Google can still shoot itself in the foot with its rapid expansion to other markets, but this is yet still speculation, and its base trade is still thriving and able to support any failure by its company in its endeavours elsewhere.

Both companies today have been popular long enough to have a well-trained client base; as habituated users are loathe to change, it would take a long series of screw-ups to motivate them to take another product. Google, if anything, is on even more fragile ground: For fickle end users, toolbars and search engines are many and free.

Re:What NERVE! (1)

Swift Kick (240510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822790)

"...and even today it doesn't come pre-installed (as a default page) with any browser."

Have you installed Firefox lately? The default page you see when you first start up Firefox is this one [google.com] .

Guess where it goes?

As an old prof once told me.... (4, Insightful)

tacokill (531275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822336)

Those who can, do. Those who can't....litigate.

It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.

From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

Re:As an old prof once told me.... (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822518)

From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

Ummm...Ayn Rand wrote fiction, you know. You can't judge the court system by non-real happenings in it.

Re:As an old prof once told me.... (1)

n1_111 (597775) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822530)

Well, so far it has been the case that EVERYONE litigates against Microsoft. Why are you crying foul now? Typical Double Standards here at Slashdot, nothing new..

The answer is simple - arrange a trade (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822350)

Ok, Microsoft - if you're worried about all these destructive monopolies then I propose you arrange a swap with Google.

Google will give up on their advertising mergers if you release a fully documented API for Windows. One hundred percent, nothing hidden. You know, what you were ordered to do (and *still* haven't done) by the EU because of your monopoly desktop position. Detail everything. File formats, network protocols - the works. Make it something that the Wine guys could grab and implement.

No? Didn't think so.

Re:The answer is simple - arrange a trade (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822440)

It cant do it. Because it is impossible to really document everything in WinXP. The code is the document. It is cobbled together and grew organically for some 20 years of spaghetti development. So they just cant do it, even if they wanted to.

Bologna. (2, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822498)

Of course it can be done. Wine is about 90% functional and they got all that with simple observation and no access to the code whatsoever. Same goes for the Samba crew.

If you had the code in front of you, it would become simple.

not the whole story (2, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822384)

i don't like MS, but i can agree with MS, their story certainly contains grains of truth, but i think MS has other things it should worry about than the AD-market when talking about google. The fact is, google moves the "desktop" away from the windows-platform, and that should worry MS a lot more than the Advertising market, because that is the hart of the MS-empire.

Re:not the whole story (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822536)

Yeah, but the truth is that MS has completely ignored the "software as an internet service" idea and instead has focused on their desktop OS and office suite products, much to their own detriment. So, rather than invest in R&D to get their own offering up and out to the masses, they'd rather use any tool they can to slow Google's adoption including making idiotic claims over Google's perceived advertising monopoly. I look at it as one more bullet to the foot.

Not wrong (1, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822388)

You know, I don't think it's a secret that Microsoft controls what many consider to be a monopoly (I personally don't think they are a monopoly, but then again I don't think Microsoft is the only (or even the fifth) software developer out there...but I digress.

Just because it's the pot calling the kettle black, or being crybabies, or anything else you folks here on teh dot like to toss around in regards to Microsoft...does that make them wrong?

I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft. So the company attempts to create a monopoly and have their OS everywhere...big deal. Eventually, the general public will wise up and move to either OSX or Linux, and Microsoft's stranglehold will dissipate.

Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?

Microsoft may be running a monopoly on the operating system market, but Google is very slowly (so slowly you won't even notice...) building a monopoly on the control of the Internet and our very lives.

Google is two steps away from becoming a government agency. Watch.

Re:Not wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822566)

Stop complaining Microsoft, you had your chance.

Re:Not wrong (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822630)

I don't know where you come off with the argument that Google is trying to control the Internet. How is it going to do that by simply cataloging data and allowing people to search it?

As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly OS. The biggest problem is that up until the last few years, most consumers didn't know they had a choice.

Re:Not wrong (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822780)

I don't know where you come off with the argument that Google is trying to control the Internet. How is it going to do that by simply cataloging data and allowing people to search it?


Because the people that control the data control everything. We are quickly becoming a networked species...WMD's, guns, "dirty bombs"...these are no longer viable weapons except in little wars. The true fights are being fought with data, and Google likely has more data stored than any other organization in the entire world, be it private or government. That is how they would control the Internet...by knowing more about it than any other group of people.

As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly OS. The biggest problem is that up until the last few years, most consumers didn't know they had a choice.


While I mostly agree with you, people did know they had a choice. Apple isn't exactly a newcomer in the home computing sector...people have known about them for years. They just haven't changed over for...well, for whatever reason they haven't. It's not like Microsoft put themselves here...they didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and told them that they HAD to by Microsoft products. The market is what made Microsoft a monopoly. Yes, Microsoft abuses their position in the marketplace, but they didn't put themselves there...the software market did.

As far as Linux goes, I will agree, many people didn't know and STILL don't know that it's out there despite it's increased mainstream media coverage...every year though, more and more people are moving from Windows to other platforms... Change takes time, sometimes longer than others.

As far as it being easily exploitable...it really is not that difficult to lock down a Windows machine...On my PC at home that I use for browsing the internet or online gaming, I have ZoneAlarm, AVG, and Spybot. Between these three FREE programs, and just a pinch of discretion in terms of my internet habits, I haven't had a single virus or bit of spyware in over three years...on top of that, excluding system or hardware updates, I haven't had to reboot in nearly 8 months.

Re:Not wrong (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822656)

but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft

So am I.

Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA

If you hove a bend towards conspiracy theories [prisonplanet.com] , you may say it is the CIA expanding its brand into the private sector.

Would be worth researching their history a little deeper.

CC.

Re:Not wrong (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822690)

See, that's the thing...I'm not really one to gravitate towards conspiracy theories...still, I think that Google started off with some really great ideas, the government caught wind of them, offered them huge amounts of cash that no one could possibly ignore, and they both shook hands in the shadows.

Re:Not wrong (1)

jellie (949898) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822848)

While I do think Microsoft consistently abuses their monopoly in the OS market, I agree with you that it does not take away from the legitimacy of the anti-trust claims against Google. They're trying to use their search engine and advertising to tie in other features and expand into those markets.

My reasoning is that you seriously have a problem if the FTC actually holds up a merger to investigate anti-trust violations. Especially under the current administration, which is extremely pro-business.

Microsoft Not Suffering (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822418)

I'm not aware that Microsoft is significantly suffering. Yeah they may want to get into the Internet advertising business, and yeah they may be an after-ran, but unless Microsoft feels entitled to own the whole world (yes, they might) I don't know how they can make their case here. They've had several years to build their own advertising model, and any failures are strictly their own. I don't recall them being worried about other computer operating system vendors while they were busy squeezing them all out.

Whining. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822424)

It's a little sad to see MS whining like this. Google actually could be a real monopoly (as opposed to MS, who cannot be due to free alternatives) because they could conceivably get to a point where someone looking to advertise on the Internet must go through Google. Microsoft, on the other hand, will never be a single point of supply for OS's. Ergo, MS cannot be a monopoly.

Regardless, Google isn't a monopoly and won't be one anytime soon so MS should shut up and quit whining like their own competitors whine.

Re:Whining. (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822846)

It's a little sad to see MS whining like this. Google actually could be a real monopoly (as opposed to MS, who cannot be due to free alternatives) because they could conceivably get to a point where someone looking to advertise on the Internet must go through Google. Microsoft, on the other hand, will never be a single point of supply for OS's. Ergo, MS cannot be a monopoly.

Regardless, Google isn't a monopoly and won't be one anytime soon so MS should shut up and quit whining like their own competitors whine.


What determines a monopoly status is a combination of market dominance and marginalization of competition because of that dominance.

Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of monopoly is. It's an abuse of monopoly to use one product to leverage another. It can be argued that Google is using their search monopoly (see definition above) to leverage its advertising monopoly. If that can be proven then it is an abuse of monopoly of the same variety that Microsoft was convicted of.

I think it is an interesting twist in the Google saga and one that needs to be looked into. The only thing I find distasteful is that it is a convicted monopolist that is calling foul on another monopoly so that the convicted monopolist can gain dominance in that market too.

In response, (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822432)

Google announces "Freedom to Advertise" campaign. Here's an excerpt from their "Get the Ads" website:

"The TCA, or Total Cost of Advership, is much higher with a Microsoft ad. You see, the cost of the ad is only a small part of the picture. Someone has got to maintain that ad..."

Some good spelling there... (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822454)

"Intergrated"? Didn't they even bother to run this through a spelling checker? Talk about professional...

Any less true? (1)

Jake73 (306340) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822476)

Most of the posts thus far seem to note that MS "should know about monopolies". But, does the fact that MS is the one filing the complaint here make it any less true?

Really, folks. Lets discuss the merits of the argument.

Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.

Re:Any less true? (3, Insightful)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822604)

Google is a monopo;y true (in that they have a majority of the online ads market). I fail to see what Google has done to damage competition though, aside from having name recognition/good products.

Re:Any less true? (2, Insightful)

pete.com (741064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822612)

There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly. It is when the monopoly uses its market size to crush competition, like MS did with Netscape for instance, that it becomes illegal. By giving away a web browser for free they made it so Netscape couldn't compete in the open market and survive financially.

Microsoft complains about monopoly abuse? (1)

skiman1979 (725635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822478)

[sarcasm]Tell me it isn't so! Microsoft worked so hard to get their monopoly. We can't let other companies threaten everything they have accomplished.[/sarcasm]

In other news... (4, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822490)

...Microsoft recently acquired the copyright on monopolies and is demanding royalty payments.

Enforcing monopoly laws (3, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822516)

Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.

If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.

Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?

The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.

Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.

Misleading title (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822526)

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.

ah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822544)

So thanks to a meddling and overbearing EU, we get two absolute behemoths of their industry reduced to whining little babies running to "mommy" (government). Who needs to try to win and retain customers, when it's much easier just to appeal to our all-beneficient socialist overlords for their temporary favor.

Its Obvious... (2, Informative)

LowlyWorm (966676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822562)

There is an "E" in Google.

Microsoft is big and powerful (4, Funny)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822568)

So instead of complaining why don't they sort out their own tarnished image and produce a good alternative?

Re:Microsoft is big and powerful (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822816)

Because that costs too much.

Re:Microsoft is big and powerful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822830)

It costs more.

Microsoft Lives in a Fragile Glass House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822596)

This is ridiculous. You can your sweet ass that if it was Microsoft abusing its monopoly power, which it constantly does, that it wouldn't complain.

How sad (2, Funny)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822624)

I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?

Re:How sad (2, Informative)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822774)

I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?

If ./ readers haven't noticed, Googles gross revenue is getting mightily close to M$FT. In fact, if you extrapolate the growth, 2008 will likely be the year Google surpasses M$FT in gross revenue.

M$FT also knows Google could fire a missile right at M$FT that would be hard to take. Imagine if Google put out GooLinux, one click download and install with Open Office.....right over XP or Vista. Not a joke either.

M$FT knows while they were wasting their time/energy on Linux, Google made an end run on them and are now in a position to surely hurt M$FT right where it counts, in the OS/Office. Linux is the knife, Google is the real enemy.

And Google isn't a monopoly, Microsoft is. When I can buy a commodity Dell or HP from Best Buy without the M$FT tax, I will say the monopoly is over.

Series of Tubes (2, Funny)

Ruke (857276) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822634)

Anyone else notice that Microsoft chose to represent internet advertising as a series of tubes? Apparently, this market isn't something you can just dump something on...

Using API's as an anticompetitive tool (1)

grandpa-geek (981017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822698)

Microsoft certainly has a lot of expertise in foreclosing competition by restricting access to API's (as they claim Google would be in position to do). Funny they also didn't mention restricting access to data formats. Or does that cut too close to home for them.

The Beauty of the Internet (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822702)

If Microsoft is so fearful of the merger, they should field their own service to counteract it, and use their quality of product to create a strong alternative....

Oh wait who am I kidding.

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly (1)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822728)

Pot...Kettle.

The Other Fear (3, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822768)

My problem with the merger is that since Doubleclick is one of the most obnoxious ad-pushers and a notoriously unscrupulous and insecure data miner, I'm afraid I'll have to look elsewhere for my search needs and delete all google cookies at once.

Not to be a detractor (2, Interesting)

euxneks (516538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822770)

Not to be a detractor, as I hate MS as much as every other sane person does, but monopolies in any form in my opinion are BAD. Just because it's Microsoft that has a competing product and is whining doesn't mean that there might be a genuine problem with the Google/Doubleclick merger or whatever it is. I don't know anything about this whole affair, but it's not right to just offhandedly dismiss the claims because Microsoft is making them.

Harming the market for harm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822778)

I think it's funny that someone would complain about a monopoly in an "industry" (and I use that term so loosely that I want to gag) that has virtually no positive use, anyway. This is like complaining about a monopolist crack dealer. If the market for ads is harmed, so fucking what? No matter which advertising network loses, we win. The last thing I want is the gummint legitimizing this "industry" by regulating it.

Google/Doubleclick... Monopoly? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822782)

Does the GOogle/DoubleClick merger keep any company from entering the market the same way, oh, MS did in the OS market in the 90's... wait, I mean, even now? The way I understand it, no, but I'm not an economics major, so go figure.

Question. How is this different from... (2, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822810)

How is this different from the radio stations asking the government to look into the contracts that the members of the RIAA have with their recording artists? As I recall, we were all pretty happy about that.

It Seems that (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822826)



The pot just called the kettle black.....

Microsoft? Ads? Hello? (2)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822844)

um ... and why is Microsoft worried about selling advertising? Aren't they are software company that buys advertising? Shouldn't they, like, be more concerned about making an operating system that works? Or, like, an office suite that doesn't crash my PC?

Why am I asking you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>