Microsoft Will Modify Vista Search
|
Microsoft will make some changes to Windows Vista search to accommodate a legal complaint made by Google. |
The changes were revealed in a routine legal filing submitted by the Justice Department, state attorneys general and Microsoft after 10 p.m. today. Earlier, information about the changes leaked out to several wire services, in yet another breach of court protocol.
Microsoft will modify search access so that end users can choose a default product; in addition, Microsoft will provide links to the default desktop search software from the Start Menu and to Explorer Windows. Microsoft plans to release the changes with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 beta, which the court document reveals will be available sometime near the end of the year.
In addition, Microsoft agreed to enable mechanisms that will make it easier for OEMs to choose search defaults and for developers to best develop search programs for Vista. The OEM agreement would be important for Dell, which ships Google desktop search as default.
"We're pleased we were able to reach an agreement with all the States and the Justice Department that addresses their concerns so that everyone can move forward," Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in a statement.
"Through a constructive and ongoing dialogue, the Department, the state Attorneys General, and the District of Columbia continue to ensure that Microsoft complies with all of its obligations under the final judgments," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnett in a statement. "In addition to reaching an agreement with Microsoft to resolve any issues about desktop search under the final judgments, the antitrust division has worked to ensure that Microsoft fully discloses and provides complete technical documentation for all protocols covered by the decrees."
Vista Search Stays
The search change, while a compromise on Microsoft's part, may not go far enough for Google. In November, Google secretly filed a complaint about Vista's built-in search mechanism, which the Microsoft rival characterized as anti-competitive. Google's problem: The indexing function of its desktop search software would compete with Vista's indexer, degrading the customer experience.
Microsoft's compromise would not remove or even turn off Vista's indexer. However, the indexer already throttles back when computational processes increase; a rival indexer would be one type of high-demand product.
By keeping the indexer in place, Microsoft avoids major architectural changes to Windows Vista. At the same time, Vista search would be available to third-party developers, even if a rival indexer were installed. For Google, the concession may not be enough, based on disclosed content of its original complaint.
Microsoft made the changes seeking to avoid potential legal wrangling with several states, said sources familiar with the agreement. Sources only agreed to discuss information already publicly disclosed.
Technically, search isn't covered by Microsoft's 2001 consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department and eight states. Sources indicated that some states were considering separate proceedings, which Microsoft sought to deflect.
Because Microsoft included search as part of Windows XP but the function wasn't deemed "middleware," search is outside the scope of the agreement. In addition, Microsoft developed Vista with some government oversight, including the search feature.
However, Google filed its complaint based on the court's Final Judgment.
According to the routine "status report" filing:
"Google's complaint contends that desktop search in Windows Vista is a new 'Microsoft Middleware Product' under the Final Judgments. The complaint contends that Microsoft has violated the Final Judgment by failing to adhere to the requirements of Section III.C and Section III.H as it pertains to this new Microsoft Middleware Product.
"After completing their investigation of the complaint, Plaintiffs worked together to reach an agreement by Microsoft with the goal of promoting user and OEM choice for desktop search in Windows Vista. Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised."
The Final Judgment is open to the interpretation of U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly more than the Justice Department, Microsoft and states. Eight other states had refused the settlement, and they pursued a stiffer remedy, which they didn't get. Kollar-Kotelly entered the settlement as her final judgment in November 2002.
Today's agreement likely deflects any separate proceedings or judge's involvement with respect to the Final Judgment.
While the new process sets up a similar mechanism as other middleware, such as Web browsers and instant messaging systems, the agreement does not recategorize search as middleware under terms of the consent degree. That said, search provider defaults will be set by the same Vista "Default Programs" feature. In addition, like middleware, Microsoft will add links to Vista search and provide links to the default search engine.
The Justice Department, Microsoft and states will meet the judge next Tuesday as part of a routine hearing, where the agreement is expected to be a topic of discussion. Unknown: Whether or not Kollar-Kotelly will rap some of the parties for leaking information about Google's complaint, which under court procedures should have been kept quiet.
Related Posts:
- Google Complaint Targets Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 9, 2007
- 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
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.



Comments (11)
Typo in title? ("Vita Search")
Posted by Wes | June 20, 2007 12:44 AM
Microsoft has gained much confidence in the last few weeks and seems to be able to accomplish anything all of the sudden. They owe it to settling with VCSY.OB(.023 PER SHARE- GO FIGURE!)! IMO
Posted by B.Clanton | June 20, 2007 1:19 AM
These will help you understand
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
• Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Microsoft Corporation
PR Newswire (Fri, Apr 20)
• Now Solutions Successfully Resolves Its Lawsuit Against Ross Systems
PrimeNewswire (Wed, Apr 18)
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=187749
Posted by B.Clanton | June 20, 2007 1:26 AM
...one would wonder if Apple dares to sue Microsoft over the blatant plagiarism done in Vista.
Oh wait, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Apple copied from Xerox.
Ah, what goes around, comes around.
Posted by tomax7 | June 20, 2007 11:40 AM
After reading about Vertical Computer Systems Inc.(VCSY) on Ragingbull and Laughing Place 2 http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/
and Laughing Place 3 http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
it is apparent that Microsoft has settled and has signed licencing aggreements. But am I seeing the VCSY PPS right? only 2.3 cents per share, I better get money in my penny stock account.
Thank-you t.b
Posted by T.B Light | June 20, 2007 12:18 PM
Interesting tidbit from slashdot:
As for Xerox, well APPLE stole from them, not MS.
Here we go... Xerox invented then ignored the personal computer as we know it and Xerox management didn't "get" that, much like HP didn't "get" the Woz. Xerox was a COPIER company who was playing in computers only because IBM started making COPIERS. Management wasn't serious about computers and was happy enough to sell off the technology.
Apple actually licensed the technology from Xerox and hired some of the design team. I worked for Xerox at the Training Center when all that was going down. Yes, I worked on the Xerox Alto workstations, the Xerox 820-II CP/M machines and even touched a Star 8010 Workstation just before they dumped it all.
Posted by tomax7 | June 20, 2007 12:29 PM
It's been business as usual at bgInc. protection services ever since Bush entered office. Hard to believe they were convicted of illegal monopolist acts, there have been no sanctions.
Posted by billy bathgates | June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
What a crock. Google asks if the user wants to make it the search engine of choice, thereby negating Vista's built-in search. I believe Yahoo does the same and possibly Ask. If the latter two don't, they should. And Microsoft should also. I don't know, since I don't use either Yahoo or Ask. I would never use any Google product, until they agree with me, in writing with an indemification clause, that they would never keep any records of my searches, personal information or anything pertaining to my IP address or ISP(s). That company, with 70 percent of search, just wants it all, and will use any methods necessary to get what it wants. Google needs to grow up. As in the dot.bomb days, they need an adult to lead them, not the two fools they have now. And their motto is 'First do no harm' or somethng similar? Secondarily, the most visible search is for programs and applications within Vista itself. A person has to search to find the Web search. And to answer that, it is in the upper left-hand corner, in the middle of the home page, which could easily be Google's.
Posted by you'veleftkansastoto | June 21, 2007 7:03 PM
In my mind, file search is within the domain of the file system. If middleware providers want to try to do better, they accept the risk of one day becoming redundant. Otherwise let's just call the whole file system middleware. The real issue here, as you'veleftkansastoto stated, is Google's perceived threat to its search dominance.
Posted by schammer | June 22, 2007 10:06 AM
Why in the world is Google trying to hide this complaint. Are they afraid everyone will find out they are just as competitive and money-grubbing as Microsoft?
Posted by Jim | March 28, 2008 11:41 AM
@schammer
I agree. I can't understand how desktop search is middleware. To me, it seems to be a requirement of an operating system. Not a separate bundled product. When I start my computer for the first time I don't want to have to go find a search program. I just want it to work.
Posted by Jim | March 28, 2008 11:45 AM