Microsoft and Google search for Justice (and things that don't change)

'Twas a busy weekend of finger pointing with the DoJ pointing to Google, which pointed to Microsoft, which beckoned its former attorney -- at the DoJ! Not to mention effective procrastination ...

Joe Wilcox blows the whistle:

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.
...
Suddenly there is chatter about the Google complaint, as seen in a New York Times story posted [Saturday], 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.
...
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.

David Hunter stalked a solution, or three:

The only problem with this thesis is that a bit of Googling provides a number of people who are only too happy to tell you how to turn Vista desktop search off. In particular, the folks at 4sysops.com list three different ways, including turning it off in the drive properties which is exactly the same way you turn off the annoying and useless Indexing Service in Windows XP. The net is that turning off the Vista’s Windows Search Service progammatically when installing the Google Desktop shouldn’t be any problem for Google.

Todd checked in with Jack:

A Microsoft spokesman, Jack Evans, said via phone this afternoon that Microsoft is working with state and federal officials to resolve the issue, but he added that Microsoft specifically designed the Windows Vista desktop search tool to avoid these kinds of issues by scaling back its indexing when other programs are running. Prior to Windows Vista's release, state and federal antitrust officials closely reviewed the new operating system, including the desktop search tool, and didn't raise concerns about the feature, he said.

Paul Roberts has seen this before:

It's like deja vu all over again, with the New York Times reporting today that Google has filed a confidential antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the U.S. Department of Justice.
...
According to the Times article, Google complained to federal and state prosecutors, claiming that Microsoft was violating the 2002 antitrust settlement against the company, which prohibits Microsoft from designing operating systems that limit consumer choice. That suit, originally brought by Web browser company NetScape, alleged that Microsoft used its operating system monopoly to push NetScape out of the Web browser market by tying Windows and its competing Internet Explorer browser closely together.

Paul McNamara describes some changes:

A decade ago the United States government appeared determined to do unto Microsoft what it had done earlier to AT&T: blow up a monopoly and send the pieces scattered to the wind.

Ten years and a change of administration later and the only explosives used by Justice Department antitrust watchdogs eying Microsoft are those being lobbed by regulators in defense of the software giant and in the direction of its opponents

Macthorpe sides with Microsoft:

Google's arguments here are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst - I have a feeling they're trying to get Windows Search removed merely to cripple Windows searching and create a niche which doesn't currently exist for them in Vista.

But nanosquid wags a (very small) tentacle at that kind of thinking:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that and instead give users the option to pick and choose what components they like.

Buffer overflow:

Around the Net

• Rough Type: Negroponte vs. Intel
• StorageMojo: Apple’s touchless file system conversion patent
• StillSecure, After All These Years: Its June, do you know where your children are?
• Matt Asay: Microsoft was once right on patents (but now terribly wrong)
• The Enterprise System Spectator: Malware damages fall to $13.1 billion annually
• Mike Kavis: The next bubble is here

Around Computerworld

• Richi Jennings: Weird Computerworld spam story, with ironic twist
• Martin MC Brown: All-in-one PC would make a great office or bedroom unit
• Robert L. Mitchell: This mouse won't hunt. Do you know why?
• Martin MC Brown: Sounds impossible, but Parallels just got better
• Robert L. Mitchell: APC sneak peek: More power to ya
• Martin MC Brown: Wireless power offers to cut the final cord
• Eric Ogren: AppScan lives on with IBM
• Shark Tank: And after all, how else will you learn things?
• Michael R. Farnum: Preparedness is key to security
• Douglas Schweitzer: Wi-Fi at Fenway?
• Shark Bait: Cleaning up his mess

Previously in IT Blogwatch

• Microsoft/LG Linux patent deal (and catcam)
• Porn pop-up teacher: prosecution prevented? (and twitterku)
• Microsoft and Xandros in new patent spat (and BttF)
• Your iPhone is imminent (and geekknit)
• Google security suspicions surface (and LOLCODE)
• Older posts

And finally... repeat as necessary ...

Computerworld's online projects editor, Joyce Carpenter, compiled today's IT Blogwatch. Our regular Blogwatcher, Richi Jennings, sends greetings from Vegas.