im pretty sick of google these days and i dont think they have much of a case here. microsoft has every right to create a product that works as they want it to. they dont need to change their code just so google can make money off of vista. i think google should create its own OS.

Easy Rhinoi think google should create its own OS.

They should, if not just to see what they can do. Would make Microsoft do a better job.

I read that article yesterday on some other site. They stated that this is probably Google fighting back, since Microsoft sued Google a while ago.

"omg we sue u!"
"Oh well, sue you too!"

I read in the Huntsville Times yesterday, that Googles Security and Privacy of its users and what not, are being called into question. I cant remember too much more on what it was because I Glanced over it before I Read about this woman in the army in NH who was considered AWOL then desertion before being given and honorable discharge for her daughters care.

GJSNeptuneThey should, if not just to see what they can do. Would make Microsoft do a better job.

that is what im thinking. but then microsoft would have actual competition and smaller companies couldnt whine and complain about microsoft being giant evil greedy corporation anymore.

They could complain about two giant evil greedy corporations. ;)

Easy Rhino...microsoft has every right to create a product that works as they want it to. they dont need to change their code just so google can make money off of vista...

Actually, no they don't, and yes they do.

Nobody's saying that they need to change their code so that google can make money off of Vista, it's that they shouldn't be allowed to change their source code so that Google can't make money off of Vista.

One is okay, one isn't. Please remember that you're dealing with a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, here.

mdm-adphActually, no they don't, and yes they do.

Nobody's saying that they need to change their code so that google can make money off of Vista, it's that they shouldn't be allowed to change their source code so that Google can't make money off of Vista.

One is okay, one isn't. Please remember that you're dealing with a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, here.

Yep, exactly what I was gonna post.

Microsoft is under special rights, after getting that label.

last time i checked apple built in a search in their OS and even throws in a free useless browser even if it isn't so intergrated as IE. you can't even begin to compare a power house like google to netscape

metalslug73last time i checked apple built in a search in their OS and even throws in a free useless browser even if it isn't so intergrated as IE. you can't even begin to compare a power house like google to netscape

Microsoft has built in search too. Its called "find" in XP.

Both OS's have this, and always have.

Googles case now is that Microsoft is purposefully BREAKING google's desktop search too.

(its good to note to delete safari, you just drag the app to the trash :p )

If google's gone ahead with this, they probably have a pretty good case. It would be stupid to not have a firm basis for this unless you've gathered a decent chunk of information against microsoft.

Easy Rhinoi think google should create its own OS.

I third that notion. I think it would catch on, would be innovative, integrated with all current google online tools, and good competition for MS... competition is what breeds innovation and perfection.

I do know there's some internal beef between Google & Microsoft... However I know this much: I know a guy who was working for MS directly handling that first suit between Google & MS, knew Bill Gates & Sergey Brin and Larry Page (creators of google) personally...
... and now he works for Google...

If Vista is intentionally directly blocking/disabling/inhibiting third party desktop searches, then it's definitely out of line, and Google's got a case.

surfsk8snow.jahI third that notion. I think it would catch on, would be innovative, integrated with all current google online tools, and good competition for MS... competition is what breeds innovation and perfection.

I do know there's some internal beef between Google & Microsoft... However I know this much: I know a guy who was working for MS directly handling that first suit between Google & MS, knew Bill Gates & Sergey Brin and Larry Page (creators of google) personally...
... and now he works for Google...

If Vista is intentionally directly blocking/disabling/inhibiting third party desktop searches, then it's definitely out of line, and Google's got a case.

Google actually does have its own OS -- they use it internally, and it's called Goobuntu. Apparently, they've been using it internally for quite a while, but they don't intend to release it.

They're already starting to piss off Microsoft now, but they're still just a fly biting at the edges of Microsoft's big time money makers (Office, Windows) -- if they release an OS, the full Evil Flaming Red Disembodied Eye of Microsoft's lawyer-machine will be turned against Google, and from that point on they'll be doing everything they can just to fight off Microsoft's lawsuits and "intellectual property" challenges.

hahah tru dat. Man all I could do was laugh while reading your post... in a good way. Its so true. We'll see what's around the corner.
I'm gonna read up on that OS too. Thanks for the link.

mdm-adphActually, no they don't, and yes they do.

Nobody's saying that they need to change their code so that google can make money off of Vista, it's that they shouldn't be allowed to change their source code so that Google can't make money off of Vista.

One is okay, one isn't. Please remember that you're dealing with a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, here.

legally you are correct, but morally you are incorrect and the legal ruling needs to be changed. every business that creates a product has absolute control over it because they created it. it belongs to nobody but that business. that is it's natural right, just as humans we have the natural right to life, liberty and property. nobody has the moral authority to tell anyone else how their product should be made. microsoft should not be forced to build a product that their competition can make money off of. and nothing in this case is stopping google from creating its own OS to compete, but instead it knows it will save money and cripple it's competition by whining. pathetic.

Easy Rhinolegally you are correct, but morally you are incorrect and the legal ruling needs to be changed. every business that creates a product has absolute control over it because they created it. it belongs to nobody but that business. that is it's natural right, just as humans we have the natural right to life, liberty and property. nobody has the moral authority to tell anyone else how their product should be made. microsoft should not be forced to build a product that their competition can make money off of. and nothing in this case is stopping google from creating its own OS to compete, but instead it knows it will save money and cripple it's competition by whining. pathetic.

Whoa, there -- you realize you're ignoring about a century's worth of legal precedent here, correct?

Businesses do not have absolute control over the products they create -- if that was the case, you'd still be eating TV dinners with vegetables grown with DDT and driving cars sold to you with cheap and faulty breaks. Businesses do not, by design, have your best interests in heart, and that's why here in America (and elsewhere) we have this thing called "regulation" -- it helps keep businesses in check.

Now, no one is saying that Microsoft has to build a product that allows others to make money off of -- however, legal precedent says that Microsoft has to not use their market position to unfairly cause other businesses to lose money.

Let me give you an example:

Scenario #1: Microsoft creates desktop file-system searching program. Google also creates desktop file-system searching program. Microsoft's application is better -- it has a snappier interface, quicker results, and looks great. Users choose Microsoft's application -- no one uses Google's and Google loses money.

Scenario #2: Microsoft creates desktop file-system searching program. Google also creates desktop file-system searching program. Google's is better -- it has a snappier interface, quicker results, and looks great. Users choose Google's application -- however, Microsoft creates the operating system that both Google's and Microsoft's file-searching programs run in (Windows), and thus Microsoft subtly changes their code so that Microsoft's application now runs better and makes Google's run slower and return crap results. Users are tricked into using Microsoft's application -- no one uses Google's and Google loses money.

Do you see how Scenario #1 is "fair" and Scenario #2 is not? Hell, you could even say that #1 is more "moral." ;)

...not to mention legal.

Google have every right to sue in this instant. Just like M$ attempted some years back, their trying to cordon a market completely. Which over here in the EU, violates the fair trade act, or something like that its called. Iys purpose is to stop companies like M$ from being the only company providing said solution, and thus charging outrageous premiums for it, when there are other alternatives out there that work better, but just wont work on M$ OS because they coded it so the 3rd party software couldnt work properly.

mdm-adphWhoa, there -- you realize you're ignoring about a century's worth of legal precedent here, correct?

im not ignoring them, im saying they are incongruent with the natural rights humans have to create and own what they create.

Businesses do not have absolute control over the products they create -- if that was the case, you'd still be eating TV dinners with vegetables grown with DDT and driving cars sold to you with cheap and faulty breaks. Businesses do not, by design, have your best interests in heart, and that's why here in America (and elsewhere) we have this thing called "regulation" -- it helps keep businesses in check.

businesses should have absolute control and actually do, it is only until they are found guilty of infringing on someone elses natural rights that the law actually comes into action. regulation wasnt there to prevent ddt in our vegetables, we were eating it for years, it was the free market that exposed its dangers. so your point is moot.

Now, no one is saying that Microsoft has to build a product that allows others to make money off of -- however, legal precedent says that Microsoft has to not use their market position to unfairly cause other businesses to lose money.

Let me give you an example:

Scenario #1: Microsoft creates desktop file-system searching program. Google also creates desktop file-system searching program. Microsoft's application is better -- it has a snappier interface, quicker results, and looks great. Users choose Microsoft's application -- no one uses Google's and Google loses money.

Scenario #2: Microsoft creates desktop file-system searching program. Google also creates desktop file-system searching program. Google's is better -- it has a snappier interface, quicker results, and looks great. Users choose Google's application -- however, Microsoft creates the operating system that both Google's and Microsoft's file-searching programs run in (Windows), and thus Microsoft subtly changes their code so that Microsoft's application now runs better and makes Google's run slower and return crap results. Users are tricked into using Microsoft's application -- no one uses Google's and Google loses money.

Do you see how Scenario #1 is "fair" and Scenario #2 is not? Hell, you could even say that #1 is more "moral." ;)

...not to mention legal.

but it is microsoft;s product. they own it. you do not own it and you do not have a right to tell them to change it. it is a sane strategy to prevent your competition from using your product against you. the only moral thing to do is let these two compete in whatever way they wish. and the law should reflect that.

I have to say, I kinda agree with Easy Rhino. Only if a company is impinging upon the rights of its customers by doing something that will harm them, or affect them adversely (e.g. - taking full advantage of them), should that company then receive 'regulation.'

However, you also do have to take into account the monopolization aspect, as the US has indeed spent a hundred years in anti-monopolizing... and while this may not seem inherently moral in itself (for morally a company who dominates should be allowed to dominate - they earned it), it is more politically and economically strategic; a nation run by monopolies becomes a threat not only to the political entity, but also to free trade and competition, thus rocking both the government and the economy.

Even still, it should be no surprise that morality is incongruent with legality anywhere in this world anymore.

surfsk8snow.jahI have to say, I kinda agree with Easy Rhino. Only if a company is impinging upon the rights of its customers by doing something that will harm them, or affect them adversely (e.g. - taking full advantage of them), should that company then receive 'regulation.'

Fortunately for the consumer, Microsoft has already been deemed by the Justice Department [United States v. Microsoft (87 F. Supp. 2d 30)] to be infringing upon the rights of its customers and has been ordered to help rivals build software that runs smoothly on Windows.

Apparently, the law agrees: Microsoft to Change Desktop Search

Boy, you gotta love our buddy Bill -- he's done so much for the computing world, but in the end, the name "Microsoft" will go down in history as a name that represents mistrust, wrongdoing, and (depending upon who you ask) downright evil.

Google first raised concerns about desktop search in December. The lengthy April complaint that drew public attention to the skirmish was filed just days after Microsoft called for antitrust regulators to scrutinize the search company's planned $3.1 billion acquisition of online ad service DoubleClick Inc.

- Wired News Report

Jeepers, these guys are just goin at it aren't they? "But mommy, look at what HE did!!!"

Microsoft has every right what to and what not to include in thier software, unless they use it to invade your privace somehow. Boohoo so google toolbar or whatever doesn't work, big deal. Nobody uses that piece of shit anyhow. Besides, it's Microsoft's problem, if they don't want it on thier OS or they don't plan to support such useless software, it's thier choice. Not google's.

Businesses are created for one reason - to make money. The more the better. When you have a market cornered by creating the best products and killing the competition, it no longer matters if your product is good or shit. That product is the only choice.

This is the general accepted definition of a monopoly.

This is what the Government decided to kill, Price raping and crappy products. M$ does not like this anymore because they can no longer make huge sums of money, and have to spend more creating competitive products again.

M$ still wants the competition to fail so that by default they are the only consumer choice and every other company has no chance.

This is defiantly not legal or moral. While the EU has a track record of taking it too far, the US has usually done according to the will of the people. I hope this continues, and the Government slaps some big fines on M$.

its a bollox lawsuit by google and they really should know better, rather than wasting money taking MS to court they should invest that money in creating a fully supported kernel of Linux and then they can have anything they want running on it without problem and you would soon see MS doing everything in their power to make sure peon programs like the google tool bars and etc work seamlessly with vista

jocksteelukits a bollox lawsuit by google and they really should know better, rather than wasting money taking MS to court they should invest that money in creating a fully supported kernel of Linux and then they can have anything they want running on it without problem and you would soon see MS doing everything in their power to make sure peon programs like the google tool bars and etc work seamlessly with vista

or.... not?

So.. they got a fully functional firefox on every OS you can imagine.

Why isn't microsoft bursting at the seams to make IE cooperate?


OOooooohhhh wait....

I like to use google for my home page, not because I think it's any better than the next search engine but cause it's customizable. I get to choose or add what ever crap I want to look at when my internet is launched. It would be nice if others would give more of a pearsonal feel to it.