Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · May 1, 2006, 05:46 AM

Microsoft is going to set a MSN Search bar in the upper right-hand corner of it's browser (like we have with Safari) and Google says it's not fair.

What hypocrites:

The Firefox and Opera browsers come with Google set as the default, but Ms. Mayer said Google would support unfettered choice on those as well.

NOW they decide - after doing it themselves with certain browsers for quite a while - that "choice" for a search tool is a must?

PUH-leeze.

The new search tool that Microsoft has coming - along with www.live.com - is going to be really kick-@ss nice.

Cody Dawg · May 1, 2006, 06:08 AM

Another example of them breaking the law - being hypocrites - with trademark infringement.

Google, which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads. In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as "BistBuy.com."

This new form of advertising is turning into a booming business that some say is cluttering the Internet and could be violating trademark rules. It also triggered a speculative frenzy of investment in domain names, pushing the value of some beyond $1 million.

Google specifically bars Web addresses that infringe on trademarks from using its ad network, but a review of placeholder Web sites that result from misspelled domain names of well-known companies found many of the ads on those pages come directly from Google.

"It seems very hard to reconcile Google's support of this activity with their 'Do No Evil' motto," said Ben Edelman, a Harvard University researcher who has looked extensively into advertising on unused domains.

Google is defending its business practices, saying it removes participating sites from its ad network if a trademark owner complains those sites are confusingly similar.

"Unless it is confusing to somebody, trademark law doesn't apply," said Rose Hagan, Google's chief trademark lawyer.

The Silicon Valley search giant is the largest but not the only ad network showing ads on placeholder Web pages. Yahoo! and Australian firm Dark Blue Sea run similar services.

This form of online advertising relies on "type-in traffic": users who type the information they're looking for into the Web browser's address bar instead of using a search engine. Industry analysts estimate 15 percent of Web traffic originates this way.

That has created a demand for domain parking, which involves owners of a domain name "parking" that name with a firm that creates placeholder pages and then inviting Google or other Internet ad networks to fill them with ads.

When Web surfers arrive at those sites and click on those ads, Google and Yahoo! get paid by advertisers for that click and share their revenue with the owners of the domain names.

Give. Me. A. Break.

The laws for trademark should be ignored doesn't unless someone is "confused?"

Gee, I can think of a lot of laws that I should start breaking just because I think someone isn't paying attention.

How about not paying taxes to begin with? The IRS probably won't notice...at least for a while!

Kevin · May 1, 2006, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

The new search tool that Microsoft has coming - along with www.live.com - is going to be really kick-@ss nice.

On paper, in theory.

Wait till it shows up and the hype is gone.

Cody Dawg · May 1, 2006, 06:36 AM

Well, I'm not going to use it, but I think it's amusing that Google

a) Yells at another company for doing what it is precisely doing and
b) Ignores trademark laws - and says that they "don't matter if they're not confusing."

besson3c · May 1, 2006, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Microsoft is going to set a MSN Search bar in the upper right-hand corner of it's browser (like we have with Safari) and Google says it's not fair.

What hypocrites:

NOW they decide - after doing it themselves with certain browsers for quite a while - that "choice" for a search tool is a must?

PUH-leeze.

The new search tool that Microsoft has coming - along with www.live.com - is going to be really kick-@ss nice.

How did they "do it themselves with certain browsers"? Firefox and Opera (and Safari) were free to use Google in their search bar, and free to use any other competitor. Unless you can prove that Google was using strong-arm tactics to force them to use their service, I don't understand your case. Likewise, each of these browsers are free to offer search alternatives for their search bar.

Microsoft, on the other hand, will probably not give consumers any sort of choice. As a monopoly, they have to play by different rules.

Cody, your arguments never cease to amaze me... I wish I could figure you out. One day, you're all for the little guy and want to put big corporations in their place. You say you're in the middle class and empathetic to all the rest of us. You post these heart-wrenching stories which illustrate your compassion for your fellow human beings...

The next day, you bring up how you make a six digit salary, how your husband is a billionaire, and you seem to take a much colder Republican viewpoint on issues - telling people without the sorts of opportunities you have had to get off their asses and work, posts like this where you seem to side with extremely wealthy corporations, make absolutist statements about the welfare of our country, etc.

You are really a hard woman to gauge, I never know what you are going to say

besson3c · May 1, 2006, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Well, I'm not going to use it, but I think it's amusing that Google

a) Yells at another company for doing what it is precisely doing and
b) Ignores trademark laws - and says that they "don't matter if they're not confusing."

How has Google done this before? Do they have their own web browser, and even if they did, would it be in monopoly status?

Not following your reasoning here.

Cody Dawg · May 1, 2006, 06:52 AM

Maybe I'm a confused Republicano Chica. After all, I AM on a boycott today.

No, my husband isn't a billionaire...he's a middle class working salaried employee who makes a questionable wage for the amount of work he does - including the type of work he does - though he loves his job.

I do make 6 figures - barely - because I work and I work a LOT. In fact, I think I put in 65 to 75 hours a week even though I'm at home.

I love Microsoft. I worked there, my ex is a director of the company, and I think they're an amazing company that really put the United States in the forefront of the technological revolution. In fact, the best job I've ever had was at Microsoft. The company treats people VERY well. And it also treats families very well with company soccer days, barbecues, picnics, athletic club passes, etc., and not just once in a while, but quite frequently.

I think Google is a great company, don't get me wrong, but I find laughable any company that decries another company's business practices is at the same time committing the supposed offense themselves. THAT is what I'm pointing out. The relative size or stature of a company is irrelevant to me - it's the hypocrisy. If this entire issue were reversed I'd be poking at Microsoft the same way.

besson3c · May 1, 2006, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I think Google is a great company, don't get me wrong, but I find laughable any company that decries another company's business practices is at the same time committing the supposed offense themselves. THAT is what I'm pointing out. The relative size or stature of a company is irrelevant to me - it's the hypocrisy. If this entire issue were reversed I'd be poking at Microsoft the same way.

Your point would be entirely valid if you could explain how Google is being hypocritical?

I'm sorry I don't share the same glowing feelings about Microsoft. I think they are a great business, a great successful business, but I think they have been responsible for slowing technical innovation, and I don't really think that as a company they are terribly interested in producing great, technically innovate products. What they are interested in is purely what will advance their cause and bottom line. They have pissed on open standards on several occasions, and have sat on products (IE is a great example) that have benefitted from the company being in monopoly status, and have made it very difficult for people to both compete and advance the technology.

This is fair game, as a business. One might point to the anti-trust cases and question their business ethics, but since I'm not a lawyer I won't make these arguments.

As somebody who knows technology though, I'll say that Microsoft is deserving of much of the criticism it gets - purely from a technological standpoint.

Cody Dawg · May 1, 2006, 07:17 AM

How can you SAY that?

Microsoft, as much as you can dislike the company, by WHATEVER means they did so, was THE company that revolutionized our country.

Imagine this country without Microsoft? Seriously? What a huge void. What if there had never been a technological push in this country at all? What if it had happened in, say, China? We were buying our Office from China? At the very least Microsoft has provided millions of jobs - yours included, indirectly. Tell me you don't use any Microsoft products? Or work with or on any Microsoft products?

I mean, c'mon.

besson3c · May 1, 2006, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

How can you SAY that?

Microsoft, as much as you can dislike the company, by WHATEVER means they did so, was THE company that revolutionized our country.

Imagine this country without Microsoft? Seriously? What a huge void. What if there had never been a technological push in this country at all? What if it had happened in, say, China? We were buying our Office from China? At the very least Microsoft has provided millions of jobs - yours included, indirectly. Tell me you don't use any Microsoft products? Or work with or on any Microsoft products?

I mean, c'mon.

I don't use Microsoft products. Seriously. Actually, our SAN server has a web interface that only works in Windows IE, but that's it. That, and testing certain pages in IE 6 is the extent of my interaction with Microsoft products.

Let's look at Microsoft's cash cows:

Office... Office is great, but it is hardly a given that we'd be at a loss without this product. There was WordPerfect. Okay, Office has been very important in shaping computing, although at the same time it has been limiting and debilitating (file sharing and format compatibility are two examples of where it sucks). I'll give you Office.

Windows... For a while Windows NT was better than Mac OS, but there was still many Unix based operating systems (and BeOS) that failed simply because they couldn't compete with an economic/business giant like Microsoft. I'm not willing to conceed this one.

Windows server products: a pile of suck

Windows programming language: some people like them, but I think it would be a difficult argument to make that they have shaped computing as we know it.

You have Windows and Office. Neither are these coveted pieces of untouchable technology the way that Google's search algorithms are, like the open source networking/server infrastructure is, like BeOS was in its day, etc.

Microsoft advanced society only so far as them being an excellent business goes. Technically speaking, they have not pulled their weight.

TETENAL · May 1, 2006, 07:48 AM

http://www.exalead.com/search

saddino · May 1, 2006, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Well, I'm not going to use it, but I think it's amusing that Google

a) Yells at another company for doing what it is precisely doing and

No, what Google is doing is fine, because Google does not have a monopoly. Microsoft has to play under different rules, because it cannot (legally) leverage its monopoly to gain an advantage against its competitors. Now, if you have any complaint it should be against US policy on enforcing constraints on monopolists. Is that what's bothering you, Cody?

b) Ignores trademark laws - and says that they "don't matter if they're not confusing."

You really don't understand trademark law. That quote was an attempt (one that failed apparently) to explain the basis for trademark infringment to lay people. Here's a write-up that might help you figure out that, indeed, "confusion" is the standard.

Leopard Employee · May 1, 2006, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

How can you SAY that?

Microsoft, as much as you can dislike the company, by WHATEVER means they did so, was THE company that revolutionized our country.

Imagine this country without Microsoft? Seriously? What a huge void. What if there had never been a technological push in this country at all? What if it had happened in, say, China? We were buying our Office from China? At the very least Microsoft has provided millions of jobs - yours included, indirectly. Tell me you don't use any Microsoft products? Or work with or on any Microsoft products?

I mean, c'mon.

Had it not been for a basic contractual error when IBM didn't buy the intelectual property for DOS instead buying the right to use it from Bill Gates Microsoft would not exist.

There would be no vacuum you would just have IBM instead of Microsoft, better or worse I don't know, but that is the root of the situation

Peteso

ryaxnb · May 1, 2006, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How did they "do it themselves with certain browsers"? Firefox and Opera (and Safari) were free to use Google in their search bar, and free to use any other competitor. Unless you can prove that Google was using strong-arm tactics to force them to use their service, I don't understand your case. Likewise, each of these browsers are free to offer search alternatives for their search bar.

Microsoft, on the other hand, will probably not give consumers any sort of choice. As a monopoly, they have to play by different rules.

Cody, your arguments never cease to amaze me... I wish I could figure you out. One day, you're all for the little guy and want to put big corporations in their place. You say you're in the middle class and empathetic to all the rest of us. You post these heart-wrenching stories which illustrate your compassion for your fellow human beings...

The next day, you bring up how you make a six digit salary, how your husband is a billionaire, and you seem to take a much colder Republican viewpoint on issues - telling people without the sorts of opportunities you have had to get off their asses and work, posts like this where you seem to side with extremely wealthy corporations, make absolutist statements about the welfare of our country, etc.

You are really a hard woman to gauge, I never know what you are going to say

actually i believe MS IE 7 has an option to change to different engine...

ryaxnb · May 1, 2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

How can you SAY that?

Microsoft, as much as you can dislike the company, by WHATEVER means they did so, was THE company that revolutionized our country.

Imagine this country without Microsoft? Seriously? What a huge void. What if there had never been a technological push in this country at all? What if it had happened in, say, China? We were buying our Office from China? At the very least Microsoft has provided millions of jobs - yours included, indirectly. Tell me you don't use any Microsoft products? Or work with or on any Microsoft products?

I mean, c'mon.

Huh? If MS hadn't done it sombody else would, maybe jobs. Of course I work with MS products. I even like some (very few) of them.

Chuckit · May 1, 2006, 09:17 AM

What on God's green earth are you talking about? How does the Firefox and Opera development teams choosing to make Google the default on their search bars (note that Google does not control these teams) make Google look hypocritical? It's not as though Google ever made a browser that could only search Google or forced Firefox to only use them.

The Firefox team just genuinely thought Google was the best choice — and not only that, but they did include support for other search engines as well.

besson3c · May 1, 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

actually i believe MS IE 7 has an option to change to different engine...

If this is the case, this lessens Google's case a great deal...

greenamp · May 1, 2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What on God's green earth are you talking about? How does the Firefox and Opera development teams choosing to make Google the default on their search bars (note that Google does not control these teams) make Google look hypocritical? It's not as though Google ever made a browser that could only search Google or forced Firefox to only use them.

The Firefox team just genuinely thought Google was the best choice — and not only that, but they did include support for other search engines as well.

QFT

DigitalEl · May 1, 2006, 09:58 AM

Dammit. Gotta start looking at who starts a thread before wasting my time.

turtle777 · May 1, 2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

Dammit. Gotta start looking at who starts a thread before wasting my time.

Why ? Can't you tell from the content ?

My Cody, abe and besson radar is well developed...

-t

CharlesS · May 1, 2006, 02:29 PM

I was going to post what Chuckit said, but he already said it, so yeah. I don't see how you can attribute the practices of the various browser makers, none of whom are affiliated with Google, to Google.

The issue here is that Google is worried about getting "Netscaped" by Microsoft, which is exactly what MS is trying to do here. Netscape also looked unstoppable at one point, but the power of MS's monopoly is such that the outcome was inevitable. It may be possible to change the default search engine in IE 7, but you know it won't be easy. And people are morons, and they'll use whatever defaults came with their computer, simply because they're too lazy to do anything else. So unless Google can come up with something fast, they'll head into bankruptcy just like anyone else who tries to compete with Microsoft does. Which will be a shame, because Google is the most innovative and fun company on the Web today. As soon as they're gone, you know this MSN search engine will stagnate just like IE did, and it will descend into unspeakable suckitude as its development team gets disbanded and moved on to more profitable projects, the goal of domination in this market being achieved.

The difference from IE is that we'll all be forced to use it.

turtle777 · May 1, 2006, 02:33 PM

Honestly, I don't see how the outcome for Google could be as fatal as for Netscape.

Don't forget, Google makes his money through advertising, and lots of that is ads on actual websites other than google.com. In addition, I think M$ user will continue to use Google if MSN search blows. And if (IF!) MSN search should become as good as Google, then I don't see a problem either.

-t

Salty · May 1, 2006, 02:39 PM

Honestly I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just pretend that Windows Live is an extension of the platform or something, and thus isn't an entirely different market. While I don't like the idea of all those people using MS's search instead of google... but really it doesn't seem that unfair to me.

CharlesS · May 1, 2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I think M$ user will continue to use Google if MSN search blows. And if (IF!) MSN search should become as good as Google, then I don't see a problem either.

It doesn't have to be as good as Google. It just has to be "good enough" and they'll all use it regardless of whether Google is better or not. The one thing you can be sure of in any case, though, is that as soon as Google is gone and there's no competition anymore, that the MSN search will stagnate and become almost unusably bad, just like IE has done in the last 7 years (remember what IE was like during the Netscape/IE war? It was actually a pretty nice browser then, probably better than Netscape).

olePigeon · May 1, 2006, 03:03 PM

There's a difference: In Firefox, Opera, and Safari, you can change the search bar to whatever you want easily. There's no requirement for it be Google. Actually, Google and those browsers have no connection what-so-ever, except that those browsers just chose them as the default.

With IE 7, Microsoft makes it purposefully difficult to choose something other than MSN.

TETENAL · May 1, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

There's a difference: In Firefox, Opera, and Safari, you can change the search bar to whatever you want easily.

You can't change the search site in Safari.

Salty · May 1, 2006, 03:16 PM

I think Apple made it more difficult to switch from google... cause I can't seem to do it.

olePigeon · May 1, 2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I think Apple made it more difficult to switch from google... cause I can't seem to do it.

I thought it was in the prefs. I'll have to look when I get home, I might be wrong. In any event, Apple doesn't own Google.

Chuckit · May 1, 2006, 03:26 PM

You need Saft or something to change the search site in Safari.

TailsToo · May 1, 2006, 08:54 PM

I don't see where Google should complain about this. If they focus on being a better alternative, they'll be fine. It's what make them popular today - when they start to whine like this, they make it sound like they need the Lawyers to survive. They don't.

kcmac · May 1, 2006, 10:11 PM

Apple isn't affiliated with any part of Google.

Microsoft (IE) is affiliated with MSN.

None of the other browsers are affiliated with any part of Google.

What is the obvious problem here? It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to change the search party or not.

You have to be a complete MS hack not to see it. Good gawd almighty.

CharlesS · May 1, 2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by TailsToo

I don't see where Google should complain about this. If they focus on being a better alternative, they'll be fine. It's what make them popular today - when they start to whine like this, they make it sound like they need the Lawyers to survive. They don't.

They're dealing with Microsoft now - having a better product is completely irrelevant.

zro · May 2, 2006, 12:44 AM

You can't readily change the search string in Safari and Firefox because Apple and Mozilla get paid by Google to have the search bar point to them. Does "&client=" ring a bell?

Another reason OmniWeb kicks all sorts of ass.

Caetano · May 2, 2006, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by zro

You can't readily change the search string in Safari and Firefox because Apple and Mozilla get paid by Google to have the search bar point to them. Does "&client=" ring a bell?

Another reason OmniWeb kicks all sorts of ass.

What are you talking about? You can change the search engine in Firefox.

zro · May 2, 2006, 01:12 AM

Never said you couldn't.

Chuckit · May 2, 2006, 05:41 AM

You said you can't readily change the search engine. In fact, you can click on the search field icon and click on another search engine — blammo, readily changed.

zro · May 2, 2006, 09:50 AM

No, I said you can't readily change the search string.

olePigeon · May 2, 2006, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by zro

No, I said you can't readily change the search string.

How would searching Amazon give kickbacks to Google? Is there a press release someplace that Google is partnering with Apple and the Mozilla Foundation?

As far as I know, the Mozilla Foudnation is a nonprofit organization.

FireWire · May 2, 2006, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I love Microsoft. I worked there, my ex is a director of the company, and I think they're an amazing company that really put the United States in the forefront of the technological revolution.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Microsoft, as much as you can dislike the company, by WHATEVER means they did so, was THE company that revolutionized our country.

Imagine this country without Microsoft? Seriously? What a huge void.

Excuse me??? Did I read Microsoft and revolution in the same sentence?

Caetano · May 2, 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by zro

No, I said you can't readily change the search string.

https://addons.mozilla.org/search-engines.php

Brass · May 3, 2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The issue here is that Google is worried about getting "Netscaped" by Microsoft, which is exactly what MS is trying to do here. Netscape also looked unstoppable at one point, but the power of MS's monopoly is such that the outcome was inevitable....
...
...So unless Google can come up with something fast, they'll head into bankruptcy just like anyone else who tries to compete with Microsoft does.

The frustrating thing is that it doesn't even have anything to do with trying to compete with MS. All you have to do is have a good product in a market in which MS doesn't even exist, and be unfortunate enough that MS decides they want to take over that market and kill the existing product.

IE did not exist when Netscape was king of the browsers. Netscape was not competing with MS at that time. MS decided to enter that market and wipe out the existing products. That is what they will probably try to do with Google. With the monopoly they have, and with the American DOJ's lack of will to stop them, there is nothing standing in their way.

CharlesS · May 3, 2006, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Brass

That is what they will probably try to do with Google.

Probably? If the chair-throwing incident is factually accurate, it's absolutely what they're trying to do. Ballmer said so himself - he's going to bury Google. And burying innovative companies is something MS has never failed at.

FireWire · May 3, 2006, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Probably? If the chair-throwing incident is factually accurate, it's absolutely what they're trying to do. Ballmer said so himself - he's going to bury Google. And burying innovative companies is something MS has never failed at.

Exactly. Still loving that "innovative" company so much, Cody?

I think America would be better and even more advanced technologically if Microsoft had never existed. They kill everything they touch, they render (almost) everything they touch mediocre, at best. Maybe they are are nice employer, but they are not nice business competitors. The Simpsons episode where Gates "buys" Homer's company is pretty representative.

sabrejim · May 3, 2006, 02:15 PM

www.cookydawg.com

Kevin · May 4, 2006, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Probably? If the chair-throwing incident is factually accurate, it's absolutely what they're trying to do. Ballmer said so himself - he's going to bury Google. And burying innovative companies is something MS has never failed at.

Something they are good at with companies that aren't very known. Once they have a known user-base, it's harder for MS to do it work.

Look at the iPod. How many years has MS tried to bury that now?

CharlesS · May 4, 2006, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Something they are good at with companies that aren't very known. Once they have a known user-base, it's harder for MS to do it work.

Netscape?

Look at the iPod. How many years has MS tried to bury that now?

Yeah, but the iPod is an expensive item. Not the sort of thing that MS can bundle free with the OS. A search engine toolbar is, just like a web browser was.

harrisjamieh · May 4, 2006, 11:05 AM

I use IE 7 beta on Windows on my Intel Mac, and it actually hasa google search field just like safari, not msn. Infact, you can choose which search engine you want it to use, and msn isn't listen anywhere. Also, if the final IE 7 does ship with MSN as standard, just install google searchbar - most people do anyway

Chuckit · May 4, 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Something they are good at with companies that aren't very known. Once they have a known user-base, it's harder for MS to do it work.

Look at the iPod. How many years has MS tried to bury that now?

Netscape wasn't well known? Were you in the same '90s I was?