Google Complaint Targets Vista Search
|
Back in November, a mystery company filed a legal complaint about Windows Vista. The company has been revealed to be Google, in a breach of legal protocol. |
Microsoft's 2001 consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department and eight states sets up clear processes for third-party complaints. U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reaffirmed those processes a year later, when issuing an order affecting eight other states that chose continued litigation rather than settlement.
As such, a technical committee oversees the consent decree and handles any third-party complaints. The Justice Department, states and Microsoft file joint status reports and occasionally meet with Kollar-Kotelly. The status report (next one is due June 19) and the status hearing (next one is scheduled for June 26) are the only venues that the court has established for public disclosure of issues related to the consent decree.
Talking Out of Place
Suddenly there is chatter about the Google complaint, as seen in a New York Times story posted today, with a Sunday dateline. The public disclosure, which fingers Google as the November complainant, violates the court's protocol for protecting the privacy of companies filing complaints. Apparently, there is division among some states and the Justice Department about the Google complaint.
The Times story pits an allegedly pro-business Bush administration against a so-called righteous states position regarding the Google complaint. Isn't Google a business, too? Extending the story's position forward, shouldn't the Bush administration be as pro-Google as pro-Microsoft? The Times' logic is weak.
What stinks here—and I don't mean to disparage the Times—is the now public disagreement among the parties. Someone spoke that probably shouldn't have, and I would love to be the fly on the wall when this mess gets before Kollar-Kotelly. She got the Microsoft case because an appeals court removed trial judge Thomas Penfeld Jackson after he spoke to the news media behind closed doors; and state blabbery derailed a settlement before Jackson ruled against Microsoft in 2000. How sympathetic is she going to be to leaks?
On another Saturday seven years ago, I wrote for CNET News.com about how a series of leaks doomed Microsoft-government settlement talks. Those leaks came about as the Justice Department and Microsoft closed in on a settlement deal that some states opposed.
Here I am again, with several states allegedly in disagreement with the Justice Department about the Microsoft case and some folks talking when they shouldn't be. In legal proceedings like this one, tongues wag when the eyes don't like what they see. The leak is a way of applying pressure and putting a clear spin on the information.
Again, I don't mean to disparage the Times, but today's story reads like a state attorney general manifesto. The story indicates the Justice Department wanted to drop the Google complaint, and somehow that is pro-business and so, therefore, pro-Microsoft and unjust. Huh?
Google Alleges What?
What is the complaint, and how do we know Google is the mystery company? Seeing as how the information had been leaked anyway and was public, a Microsoft lawyer confirmed Google's identity this afternoon. However, Microsoft hasn't seen the complaint but knows some of the contents based on questions received by the technical committee. Google could not be reached for comment or confirmation.
As for the complaint: Apparently, Google contends that Windows Vista's built-in search feature is anticompetitive because the search indexer can't be turned off. So, for people choosing Google Desktop Search, there would be two indexers running, which allegedly would degrade performance and the overall end user experience.
Huh? If performance degrades doesn't that affect the overall Vista experience more? Double indexing would hurt Microsoft more than Google, which benefits from people choosing to stick with Windows XP and using Google Desktop Search. True, the Vista indexer doesn't have an easily accessible off switch—and why should there be one? Search is an obvious operating system utility. That said, Vista's indexer will throttle back performance in the presence of another indexer or other applications with hefty processing demands.
Google filed its complaint a few days before Microsoft released Vista to businesses. What strange timing. Microsoft had been talking about integrated search since 2003, so Google had plenty of notice.
What about Mac OS X? Apple offered pervasive search long before Microsoft. Google has a desktop client for the Mac. Why isn't Google fussing about dual-indexing on the Mac, if it's such a big problem?
Other Complaints
Google made one other complaint, about IE 7 search, that the Justice Department dismissed in May 2006.
Google argued that Microsoft acted unfairly by making Windows Live search the default search engine and making the process of switching providers too difficult.
Funny thing, the process for adding search providers to IE 7 is almost identical to Firefox. Difference: Firefox's default provider is Google, and it comes with a shortlist of other search providers. Another thing that Google kind of brushed over in its complaint: When consumers upgrade to IE 7, the default search engine remains what it was before, which could easily be Google. On new PCs, the OEM decides the default search provider. For Dell, that's Google. What's anticompetitive about that? Apparently not much, as far as the Justice Department saw it.
Most of the other third-party complaints dealt with protocol licensing, which has been an ongoing problem area for Microsoft with antitrust cases on two continents. Microsoft's consent decree officially ends in November, but government oversight will continue for an additional two years because of protocol licensing problems.
Is Search Middleware?
It's unrealistic to gauge the legitimacy of Google's complaint sight unseen. However, processes already completed raise questions about legitimacy under the consent decree.
Microsoft started discussing Vista search features with government trustbusters in 2004, with the purpose of clearing the operating system of any consent decree hurdles. Microsoft's bigger priority would be to ship the operating system rather than risk any last-minute legal entanglements.
The consent decree applies to software defined as middleware by the agreement. Vista search failed to meet the middleware definition for at least three reasons, any of which would have been enough. For example, the consent decree had already defined the middleware categories with respect to Windows XP. Search was not defined as middleware in XP and so could not be defined as part of Windows Vista. Had search been a new feature, it could have fulfilled one criterion for being middleware.
Certainly, some state attorney general or even the Justice Department could take action against Vista outside the consent decree, but on what truly anticompetitive grounds? Where's the harm to Google or consumers, if there is competition? Microsoft's No. 3 position behind Google and Yahoo in Web search shows that there is plenty of competition even with search bundling in Vista.
That said, Microsoft has done some search unbundling in Vista compared with XP. The end user's default search engine in Internet Explorer 7 applies elsewhere. For example, Web search initiated from the search box on the Vista tool bar uses the default search engine, even Google. By comparison, Google doesn't provide a similar mechanism for using another search engine from its desktop or tool bar search products.
Microsoft also has published APIs so that third parties, even Google, could put their own front-end user interface onto the Vista indexer. There is a one-indexer option available to Google.
I see a whole lot of competition by litigation going on here. I don't see any Netscape comparison as stated by some people in the Times article. I've covered Microsoft legal issues for a decade, and I've seen plenty of Microsoft shenanigans. This isn't one of them.
Related Posts:
- The Google Problem, Microsoft Watch, May 31, 2007
- And There Was One, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 21, 2007
- Microsoft Competitors' 'Wow' Moment, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 26, 2007
- Microsoft Resubmits Technical Documents to the EU, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 23, 2006
- Who You Gonna Call? Trustbusters!, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 17, 2006
- DOJ Rebuffs Google's IE Complaint, Microsoft Watch, May 14, 2006
Comments (25)
This was very well done, and alot of thought had work was put into it. :) Two Thumbs up.
Posted by Joem | June 9, 2007 10:32 PM
I agree: Two Thumbs Way Up!
If companies continue to complain about every Vista component, the only non-"anti-competitive" technology left would be Microsoft Paint, and that itself might interest Adobe.
Posted by Albert | June 10, 2007 12:09 AM
There should be an easy to access indexing switch, wise guy.
Something like "Turn off indexing - improves overall performance".
And furthermore, people need to learn organize their files, not
throw them around the hard disk in a chaotic matter.
I guess this would be asking too much from regular idiots.
Posted by EpsDel | June 10, 2007 7:23 AM
Indexing CAN be turned off in Vista from the properties of the drive. I am sure this is a registry entry. Google instead of winning, they should prompt the user during installation of the Google Indexing service to disable Vista indexing. End of story. It seems that Google has puschased one of these B.S. winning generators...
Posted by Evan | June 10, 2007 10:29 AM
2 EpsDel: The very idea of hierarchical filesystem and people learning to "organize" their data the only way is rooted in the last century sixties and long obsolete. Fast search and tagging of information, not files, is the key. Funny thing, Apple, Palm, Google and even MS do undestand that, you still don't.
Posted by Alexey | June 10, 2007 10:39 AM
Wow! I always knew NY Times had a bias. Didn't know it was this strong.
Posted by sk | June 10, 2007 11:21 AM
Wow, two monopolies fighting each other here, Google and Microsoft, and one of the worst papers in the country reporting it. Can't think of when I agreed with the NY times, but in this case, I do mostly.
Isn't just plain funny that Microsoft always seems to build in things that trend to break, slow down, or hurt in some way their competitors products. every time a new MS OS is released? My guess is you can get away with it if you own those in charge of protecting the public from a convicted predatory monopoly. Which is exactly what is happening until the NY Times story came out. Although I doubt anything will change still, until after the next election, if then, depending on who replaces Bush. Perhaps, some of the states might sue MS on this issue for fines. But that would be just using the courts for an end run tax grab.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 10, 2007 7:56 PM
"Can't think of when I agreed with the NY times, but in this case, I do mostly."
Of course, you do, chippy. I can see why. It's obvious you have no first hand experience about all this. I'm sure your cousin's friend's sister's boyfriend told you about Microsoft's problems, right?
Posted by sk | June 10, 2007 8:48 PM
Simple search is an obvious operating system utility. Full-text search - and that is what we are talking about here - is absolutely not an obvious OS utility. The difference is like that between a file system and an enterprise RDBMS. A very easy turn off feature for full-text search should be available regardless of Google's complaint.
Posted by zack | June 11, 2007 11:51 AM
Simple search is an obvious operating system utility. Full-text search - and that is what we are talking about here - is absolutely not an obvious OS utility. The difference is like that between a file system and an enterprise RDBMS. A very easy turn off feature for full-text search should be available regardless of Google's complaint.
Posted by zack | June 11, 2007 11:52 AM
The argument is ignorant and absurd. Another "tech" writer, short on content, out to meet their word quota.
1. The Switch
As far as switching to Vista, consumers don't have much of a choice. If you're buying a new computer, you're practically forced to go this route, unless you switch to OS X which is unlikely for the vast majority. Either way, it is just a matter of time before the upgrade is essential like it has been from 95->98->2000->XP. Why would Vista be an exception? Silly.
2. Disabling of Indexing
A function of the OS can't be disabled? Um, when you install a 3rd party firewall product, XP disables its Windows Firewall because it detects the other software. No reason the same can't happen with indexing. It could simply prompt the user. Also, there is no guarantee that there will be a discernable degradation of performance. I run Quicksilver on my Mac which has similarities to the built-in Spotlight with no noticeable performance hit.
Posted by Javi | June 11, 2007 12:03 PM
A very easy turn off feature for indexing should be available regardless of Google's complaint.
Especially considering that the Vista indexer right now has a number of serious bugs.
I had to turn it off in my computer via SERVICES Properties. I would've left it if it had worked properly. Vista Help info contains nothing about how to turn it off. Why hasn't Microsoft offered an easy disabler when they know it's still rough? And now, every time I do a search I get forcefed: "Your searches might be slow because the index is not running". There's no offer to "Don't Show This Message Again". Why are they being so emphatic?
Because Google threatens. Vista aims to dislodge the big presence that Google has in XP for desktop indexing. The reality is that indexing is not an OS utility in XP, and MS wishes to make it one in Vista.
In my political opinion Google should be granted the right to compete to retain and grow its presence, which means first of all an easy turnoff feature.
Posted by sean | June 11, 2007 8:41 PM
I think that the logic in this article is flawed. Think about it: Someone has Vista running, happily (Yeah, I know... Stay with me here 8^)). Then they go to install the Google search -- perhaps one they had used happily under XP. All of a sudden, their system is slow at times. And, perhaps they don't even *want* search (maybe they are a gamer). Who are they going to blame? Google, of course. Everything was fine until ..... And you think there are no shenanigans going on? Get real. ANY vendor is out to do as much as it can to capture customers, and make them avoid their competitors. For this, we cannot blame Microsoft. This is what companies do -- they push their envelopes. But, we CAN blame press that does not CALL them on it, or lawyers, like those at the US DOJ who try to argue that this is not a problem. In the one case, maybe we write a letter to the editor, or, worst case, we vote with our feet and don't subscribe to that publication. In the latter case we vote them out of office. (As if DOJ hadn't done anything *else* screwy.....)
Posted by Cube | June 11, 2007 10:24 PM
(oops: Forget the part in my previous post about "perhaps they don't even *want* search" (if they didn't, why would they install Google search in the first place.....)
Posted by Cube | June 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Even if i accept google'ss argument that Vista indexing cannot be turned off - which is wrong but anyway -, their argument about slowing down Vista, when both indexing services are installed is false as well.
Vista indexing runs in low priority, so if google indexing starts vista indexing will ecentially snooze.
Posted by evan | June 12, 2007 9:44 AM
wow, hate google much?
Posted by jlm | June 12, 2007 3:22 PM
It's o.k Google will prevaile in the End~ I have Faith, I once worked for them, G00Gle is the wave of the future, as far as I know they play by the rules, except for their starting pay, which pushed me out the door~ Hoping the CEO sees this and rehires me with a better wage.Google doesn't claim it can't be turned off, just that maybe the avg user can't, also they don't claim it slows Vista,the claim is the searching process(speed)~ 1love Google for Life!
Posted by Nashi | June 14, 2007 10:11 PM
[For some reason this post appears to have been deleted shortly after I posted it. No one has contacted me regarding a problem with the message. If the moderator of this group has any objection to my reply to EpsDel's post which simply applies to him the same comment he used against the previous poster, I would be grateful to hear of it. If the moderator has a problem with my post, I would have expected him to have deleted the post by EpsDel which promopted it.
TBear
------------------------
Quoting EpsDel, 6/10/2007:
> There should be an easy to access indexing
> switch, wise guy. Something like "Turn off
> indexing - improves overall performance".
> And furthermore, people need to learn organize
> their files, not throw them around the hard
> disk in a chaotic matter.
> I guess this would be asking too much from
> regular idiots.
Well, folks, the EpsDel idiot has spoken and I guess the rest of us had better pay attention or he'll spill his coffee and wet himself.
Yes, an easy-off switch utility would be nice. Perhaps Mr. EpsDel will do us all a favor and write one.
While we wait, I'll check out the better mannered more thoughtful posters and offer a warm thank you to Joe Wilcox for his interesting column.
-={TBear}=-
Posted by TBear | June 23, 2007 2:09 AM
Hi
when I try t open my email true google I get the message from microsoft it says
( the internet explorer can not open the internet site http://mail.google.com/mail/?tab)
then a message say
operation aborted.
that doen not make me open my email true google
thanks
Posted by Ahmad | September 30, 2007 8:13 AM
After buying a new HP Desktop computer a few months ago with Vista installed, I am completely disgusted with the Vista operating system.
Not only is it slower to Boot, but any time I try to put the computer in a low power state, when I return to use the machine a few hours later, the damn thing freezes, the cursor won't move. I have to turn off the power, then reboot to get it to work.
If I select Sleep mode, if left for more than a few minutes, the same thing happens when I return to do more work.
I have concluded it is the operating system which is at fault, because I have to go to start, then select sleep or low power state, which are part of the Windows Vista OS.
Also if I leave the computer full on over night, I get the same freeze results when attempting to resume my work in the morning.
If there is a solution, please email it to me now.
Otherwise, I'll remove Vista and go back to XP that didn't give me these kinds of problems.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Robert N. Whitmore
Posted by Robert Whitmore | January 31, 2008 12:21 AM
I have tried several times to send an email card to my son-in-law's for his birthday, I finally had to get on Yahoo to get it done. Google just didn't give me time enough to finish. I also bank on line & Google expires way too soon. Please respond. Thanking you in advance.
Posted by Jean C. Love | February 7, 2008 4:17 PM
Simple search is an obvious operating system utility. Full-text search - and that is what we are talking about here - is absolutely not an obvious OS utility. The difference is like that between a file system and an enterprise RDBMS. A very easy turn off feature for full-text search should be available regardless of Google's complaint
Posted by oyun | February 25, 2008 10:37 PM
Alexy says "The very idea of hierarchical filesystem and people learning to 'organize' their data the only way is rooted in the last century sixties and long obsolete".
There's a REASON most file systems specify a unique path and name for files, and that is so you are certain you get exactly what you expect. When you grope around via search, you may well get something else instead, and that opens the door to malware spoofing.
Microsoft has been trying to ram indexed search down our throats since the first days on MS Office Fast Find. Later versions of MS Office changed to a less-obvious startup entry and made it harder to kill off Fast Find, then NT embedded indexing within the OS.
So yes, some of us want it GONE, whether we choose to use something else instead, or enjoy better performance free of indexing that is useless to us.
There is a definite anti-competitive aspect to the way Microsoft currently enables alternative subsystems. Because the Microsoft equivalent is not removed, we still suffer the hard disk footprint, exploitability and patching overhead, and in some cases, runtime performance impact.
What makes a better subsystem? Not just that it does more or works better, but that it runs more efficiently, or is better coded so that it does not need constant patching, etc.
The way things are, a more efficient subsystem competing with bundled MSware is unable to deliver that efficiency benefit, as its smaller overhead is added to (rather than exchanged for) the larger overhead of the MSware equivalent.
Posted by Chris Quirke | March 24, 2008 8:10 AM
The difference is like that between a file system and an enterprise RDBMS. A very easy turn off feature for full-text search should be available regardless of Google's complaint.Thanks
Posted by araba oyunu | September 5, 2008 9:16 AM
The difference is like that between a file system and an enterprise RDBMS. A very easy turn off feature for full-text search should be available regardless of Google's complaint
Posted by Oyun | September 5, 2008 9:17 AM