Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Did Google Tip Off EU About Microsoft Browser Ballot?

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the tattle-tail dept.

Google 187

Dupple writes with a story about the latest in the Google-Microsoft feud. "The tired spat between Google and Microsoft just got a lot more interesting after reports that the search giant tipped off European authorities to antitrust concerns, a tip that will now cost the Windows-maker nearly a billion dollars. When news of the fine levied by the European Union's competition watchdog broke on Wednesday, nobody was too surprised that the European Commission was punishing Microsoft for bullying consumers. But with a recent headline-stealing dispute between the Redmond, Washington company and Google, it's competitor down in Mountain View, California, bloggers got curious. Early Wednesday evening, The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara wondered, 'Did Google Snitch?' According to a Financial Times report published a few minutes later, the answer is yes."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

viet4g (-1, Troll)

viet4g (2860247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113751)

http://truyensex321.com/ [truyensex321.com] hay nht wap sex y

Obvious troll (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113771)

This story is an obvious troll. There was no need to "tip off" the EU, it was plainly obvious to everyone the browser ballot disappeared and the EU obviously monitors compliance with its rulings.

Furthermore when did â500m before "nearly a billion dollars"? Someone can't do maths.

Re:Obvious troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113799)

561m Euro = 734m U.S. Dollars, which is almost closer to a billion than to 500m.

Re:Obvious troll (3, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113851)

And yet it isn't closer.

Re:Obvious troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114043)

It doesn't need to be. There was no comparison between those.

Yes there was. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114269)

"Almost a billion dollars" is more wrong than "Almost half a billlion".

If they'd said "Almost a trillion", and someone pointed out that a billion was closer, would you say "it doesn't need to be, there was no comparison between those"?

Re:Yes there was. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114317)

You would never say that $734m was "almost half a billion" in English. You might say "over half a billion" but it would be more accurate to say "almost three quarters of a billion" rather than "almost a billion".

Re:Yes there was. (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114517)

If I was looking for nits to pick, I could greater nit than this.

Re:Yes there was. (4, Funny)

Tumbarumba (74816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114583)

If I was looking for nits to pick, I could greater nit than this.

How many nits could a nit picker pick, if a nit picker could pick nits?

Re:Obvious troll (4, Funny)

hedleyroos (817147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114117)

Give it a month :)

Re:Obvious troll (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114311)

561m Euro = 734m U.S. Dollars, which is almost closer to a billion than to 500m.

Well, if you're rounding up to the nearest billion, then $1 is "almost a billion dollars".

Re:Obvious troll (1)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114531)

I think it's the precision. They are rounding to the nearest whole billion. 0.7 rounds up to 1.

Re:Obvious troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113801)

So obvious no one noticed for a year. Just like how the "N" SKUs of Windows were a worthless waste of time and resources too, but the precious EU didn't want the media-center pieces. Oh well, whatever helps them keep Greece afloat.

In the meantime, google gets fined 21million for, you know, actually stealing private data as they sniff wifi...

Re:Obvious troll (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113807)

Are the N SKUs still available? Never seen them.

Re:Obvious troll (1)

MortenMW (968289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113839)

They still are, at least in MSDN and ActionPack, but I don't think I have ever seen it in retail or actually running at an end-users computer

Re:Obvious troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113927)

Because no one cared but the EU had to "do something"

Re:Obvious troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114081)

We use Windows 7 N at work. Nice to be able to install the video player one prefers, without having to fight Windows Media Player.

N only gets rid of WMP, though. The version without IE is called K, which I haven't tried. Being a web development company, we need to be able to test in IE.

Re:Obvious troll (4, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114195)

We use Windows 7 N at work. Nice to be able to install the video player one prefers, without having to fight Windows Media Player.

In what way do you have to fight WMP? You can set the default player by file type (and all video players give you the option to make their program the default). Plus you can go into "Turn Windows features on or off" and remove Windows Media Player completely in standard Windows 7.

You can probably do the same thing in Windows 8 by moving the mouse to four seventeenths of the way down the screen near the left side (right side in the sourthern hemisphere) and draw six anti-clockwise circles.

Re:Obvious troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113877)

Yes, they're all available even through Windows 8. Also it wasn't media center, it was actually the core media player.

Re:Obvious troll (3)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113823)

It's quite ridiculous to claim data to be "private" when you are broadcasting it unencrypted via wifi...

Re:Obvious troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113841)

It's quite ridiculous to require an explicit listing of browsers on a computer

Re:Obvious troll (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114085)

It was essentially a penalty for breaking the law earlier, and they failed to live up to their parole terms, then whine that Google told on them.

Since Microsoft suggested that they do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114509)

Since Microsoft suggested that they do that, then you're asserting you know better than Microsoft what should be done to their OS...

Re:Obvious troll (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113897)

They didn't get the fine for the offense itself. They had a suspended sentence hanging over them for earlier abuses and they broke the restrictions imposed on them for that sentence.

When you steal a bar of chocolate you don't automatically end up prison, but you do when you already have been sentenced to a suspended prison sentence.

Re:Obvious troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114105)

I think you may have one too many sentences in your sentence sentence.

Re:Obvious troll (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113857)

That and so what if Google did tip them off?

Microsoft has been paying millions to lobby EU staff and politicians to attack Google over non-issues, that's far worse than Google pointing out to the EU that Microsoft was in breach of it's obligations as a result of the investigation against them.

I assume the nearly a billion dollars thing comes from the exchange rate as I believe the figure you quote is euros no?

Re:Obvious troll (5, Informative)

Raumkraut (518382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113873)

Not only that, but the article linked provides no actual background to how it is "known" that Google "snitched" - just an unsourced quote.
A little digging indicates that the quote comes from a Financial Times article [ft.com] (registration required). Here are the relevant paragraphs:

Brussels punished Microsoft for failing to give at least 15m consumers a choice of web browser - a violation of a voluntary antitrust pact that was spotted and raised by Google and Opera, according to several people familiar with the case.

The US software group was left to police its own compliance and Mr Almunia said the lapse was brought to his attention by a Microsoft rival. According to people involved, Google and Opera informally provided the tip-off and helped investigators.

Re:Obvious troll (3, Informative)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114023)

I think you're incorrect on the first part. From the linked FT article:

"The US software group was left to police its own compliance and Mr Almunia [EU competition supremo] said the lapse was brought to his attention by a Microsoft rival. According to people involved, Google and Opera informally provided the tip-off and helped investigators"

Another fun snippet:

"The episode was cited as a reason for giving Steve Ballmer, chief executive, only half his potential bonus last year."

Cry me a river.

Re:Obvious troll (2)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114551)

> plainly obvious to everyone the browser ballot disappeared and the EU obviously
> monitors compliance with its rulings

Wasn't it missing for 14 months?

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

sofar (317980) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113775)

Microsoft were fined for a reason. Who cares that google complained? They make a browser... this is sooooo non-news.

Re:Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

sofar (317980) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113779)

And to answer my own question: All the Apple fanbois care, obviously.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113913)

And to answer my own question: All the Apple fanbois care, obviously.

You seem to like straw men...

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113983)

And to answer my own question: All the Apple fanbois care, obviously.

Get a life.

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

shellbeach (610559) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114065)

Microsoft were fined for a reason. Who cares that google complained?

I don't think you quite understand how the tech world has changed. With the rise of Android, iOS and OSX, Microsoft has become the new underdog. It's only right and just to give minority OSes your support when big corporate bullies try to take them down.

Remember the love, people. When new items of hardware are released, make sure the question is asked here on /., "Sure, but can it run Windows??"

I don't think you quite understand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114113)

I don't think you quite understand.

This was about complying with a past ruling on previous monopoly behaviour, (they are a convicted monopolist after all)

Irrespective of whether other platforms exist using broadly the same technology, NONE of them are convicted monopolists.

Windows still holds a significant proportion of the desktop world to ransom (perhaps > 95%) specifically because they still maintain their monopoly.

Why should the EU let them slide on the consequences of their conviction and punishment.

To my mind that just shows utter contempt for the rule of law in the EU which show Microsoft has not changed its spots.

Re:I don't think you quite understand. (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114235)

Replying to cancel wrong moderation

Re:I don't think you quite understand. (1)

Plunky (929104) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114467)

(they are a convicted monopolist after all)

I'm not sure that being a monopolist is any kind of crime, so being convicted of such a thing does not seem possible? However, I have seen such language here before and I would like to emphasize that they were convicted of being monopoly abusers, as in.. they abused their fully legal monopoly position. I feel that there are different possible PR angles around these terms, and it is important that we do not encourage that.

convicted monopolist: the implication can be promoted that its not really their fault that they are so popular that everybody uses their products and the EU really is unfair to penalize them because of that.

convicted monopoly abuser: this is much more difficult to weasel out of, as it has the negative word abuser in the phrase.

Personally, I prefer the latter phrase as it is more descriptive and correct, and I feel it is important to label such a company as this correctly, so that other people who would otherwise not know the details, are not as able to be misled..

Re:Who cares? (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114199)

I don't think you quite understand how the tech world has changed. With the rise of Android, iOS and OSX, Microsoft has become the new underdog.

Microsoft the new underdog? With 90% userbase on desktops I can hardly believe that. They cannot keep up with online services like Bing and Hotmail loses ground, and even Windows is losing to OSX, Chrome and possibly Ubuntu, but that doesn't count until Windows dives below 50% on the desktop.

Re:Who cares? (1)

N!k0N (883435) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114267)

Remember the love, people. When new items of hardware are released, make sure the question is asked here on /., "Sure, but can it run Windows??"

No, and nothing of value was (will be?) lost.

Re:Who cares? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114419)

MS still has a near monopoly on the computers people use for office and engineering work. Yes a lot of people have andrios or iOS smartphones but they are in addition to a windows PC, not instead of a windows PC.

Snitch? (5, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113781)

A competitor violates the rules to ruin a company and if you call the cops you are a snitch?

Are you a gang member or just a moron?

Re:Snitch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113819)

It ruined no one by not having that list present

Re:Snitch? (5, Insightful)

MadKeithV (102058) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113883)

It ruined no one by not having that list present

It was illegal and a violation of the agreement that Microsoft themselves signed with the EU after Microsoft lost the browser bundling court case. That's all that matters. The EU said "you can't do that" to Microsoft, Microsoft fought it hard in court, Microsoft lost, Microsoft agreed to a specific remedy, Microsoft then violated that remedy, Microsoft gets fined to send a message to any company that might think it's not that big a deal to violate a legal agreement with the EU. Whether it was sensible or not doesn't matter - it is the Law, and as a company you cannot flip off the Law and expect to get away with it.

Re:Snitch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114145)

"Whether it was sensible or not doesn't matter - it is the Law"

I think you show an obvious lack of critical thinking and so you should not have the right to vote.

Re:Snitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114185)

If the law is stupid, change the legislation, or change the legislature.

Flouting the law is anarchy. I think the rules against murder are stupid, so I think I'll just ignore 'em, in your case.

Re:Snitch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114327)

LOL, that means war? Because it was Microsoft (an USA company) that got hit by the Law of the EU.

Re:Snitch? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114197)

"Whether it was sensible or not doesn't matter - it is the Law"

I think you show an obvious lack of critical thinking and so you should not have the right to vote.

No, you are reading something into my post that isn't there. I am simply pointing out that there is a cause and effect relationship with breaking the law and/or a contract. The parameters of the effect in this particular case were clearly set out in the agreement between Microsoft and the EU, and Microsoft agreed to them before breaking the agreement.
Finally, why does having the **right to vote** matter to you, if you don't actually accept the rule of law?

Re:Snitch? (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114265)

"Finally, why does having the **right to vote** matter to you, if you don't actually accept the rule of law?"

This isn't inconsistent with what he's saying. What he's saying is that he feels only he should decide when breaking the law does and doesn't matter, and that only he should decide who does and does not deserve to vote.

In other words, he's a fond supporter of dictatorship propped up by fake democracy, such as in Iran, Russia and so forth.

I wouldn't worry too much about him.

Re:Snitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114359)

"as a company you cannot flip off the Law and expect to get away with it."

Unless you're in America.

Re:Snitch? (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114035)

It ruined no one by not having that list present

Microsoft was forced to put that ballot list up after they deliberately used bundling and threats of OEMs having their Windows license revoked unless they shunned a Microsoft competitor. This tactic was successful in that it ruined Netscape. The list was put there to try and prevent MS from doing it again to another company and as a signal to other tech companies of what happens when you use tactics like that, i.e. very large fines. That bloody ballot list is as much a head on a spike as anything else.

Re:Snitch? (1)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114505)

Microsoft was forced to put that ballot list up after they deliberately used bundling and threats of OEMs having their Windows license revoked unless they shunned a Microsoft competitor. This tactic was successful in that it ruined Netscape.

I'm sorry, but Netscape ruined Netscape. It wasn't mainly what Microsoft did (though that must have helped, and it was definitely illegal), but rather what Netscape did. I know lots and lots of people who liked Netscape Navigator (including me), but dropped it after it became Communicator (especially after version 4). Their browser was not as good as IE at that point.

Now I use Mozilla Firefox, and have doing so for a long time (though their poor design choices might have me switching to SRWare Iron or Opera).

Re:Snitch? (1, Informative)

black3d (1648913) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113981)

Because Google is in ruins? I don't disagree that them "snitch"ing is a non-issue under the circumstances, but they're not exactly falling apart here.

Looking at it from another perspective, Google have a fairly strong grip on the search market (not monopoly-esque, per se, there are available alternatives but the fact that people don't tell you to "search for it" but "Google for it" demonstrates their entrenchment in the marketplace). They certainly don't *advertise* other browsers in their products, except for Chrome. Nobody decries this fact, but from personal experience I can tell you about plenty of non-'computer people' who've installed Chrome simply because of the advertisements from Google telling them it'll let them "browse faster". Fact or not, they're leveraging their position very nicely to increase their market share.

Microsoft distribute an Operating System and bundle a browser with it - the same as virtually every other OS out there. The only difference here is Microsoft's incredible market-share in the desktop space. They're not exactly making money off the browser, so the real shame here is that the EU still considers Microsoft's position to be an unfair advantage over its competitors browsers. Actually - maybe they don't. After all, they're not going back to court and trying to prove the necessity, just jumping on the fact that MS failed to keep an agreement.

Nobody's in ruins over it. The only fact here is that MS violated their agreement. That's it. Chrome's marketshare has increased year on year, even during the SP1 "outage". If you're trying to argue "maybe it would have increased more...", you're grasping at straws.

The shame here... (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114061)

the real shame here is that the EU still considers Microsoft's position to be an unfair advantage over its competitors browsers

It was and still is monopoly abuse. The fact that browsers exist on mobile devices where Microsoft is a laughing stock because its not an entrenched monopoly is just an aside. The reality is perhaps the EU should take a closer look at iOS and Android, to ensure that users are given a choice there, as we have seen the damage that Microsoft did [does] to the internet should not be allowed to move to other devices.

The shame here is it took browsers generation ahead....and a complete paradigm shift in computing habits over a decade to get 50% of the market, and still people defend Microsoft.

Re:The shame here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114365)

They are given a choice, lots of them. Where pray tell is IE for android? iOS?

Re:Snitch? (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114075)

I did a search in Google. When searching for "Web browsers" IE was an extra small link at the very bottom of the page. Top result was Wikipedia, which I'm sure lists them a.. (i didn't bother to check), but just food for thought.

Re:Snitch? (1)

ibwolf (126465) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114139)

I did a search in Google. When searching for "Web browsers" IE was an extra small link at the very bottom of the page. Top result was Wikipedia, which I'm sure lists them a.. (i didn't bother to check), but just food for thought.

And if you search for "web browsers" on Bing IE doesn't show up at all except in a side bar under 'related searches'. Seems MS hasn't done any SEO for IE under the term 'web browser'.

Re:Snitch? (1)

mrt_2394871 (1174545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114193)

And if you search for "web browsers" on Bing IE doesn't show up at all except in a side bar under 'related searches'. Seems MS hasn't done any SEO for IE under the term 'web browser'.

But if you're using IE, you're using IE, and there's no need to search for it.

And if you're not using IE, then you're either on a platform which IE doesn't run on, or you (or your friendly BofH) have already taken steps to not be running IE. For either of those cases, you wouldn't be helped by searches for "web browser" listing IE highly.

So any outlay of resource on SEO would be wasted.

Re: Snitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114449)

If IE will run on your computer then it was pre-installed on your computer. IE doesn't run on non-Windows computers and is the very first browser installed on every Windows computer.

No one who can run it needs to search for it.

Re:Snitch? (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114089)

Does apple ever get in trouble for bundling safari? Do they offer a choice? I don't apple so I don't know.

Re:Snitch? (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114309)

Nope. Apple don't have a monopoly and certainly aren't abusing a monopoly in one market to get ahead in a different market (which is what Microsoft where found guilty of).

Re:Snitch? (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114325)

Does apple ever get in trouble for bundling safari?

Altogether now: Apple is not a convicted monopolist so they can do what they like.

Re:Snitch? (1)

Duncan J Murray (1678632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114041)

Yes - when did big business become the playground again?!

What I want to know is when the EU will investigate other possible anticompetitive practices such as:

Customers being unable to not purchase Microsoft Windows from many of the OEM PC manufacturers.

Secureboot

D

Re:Snitch? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114107)

A competitor violates the rules to ruin a company and if you call the cops you are a snitch?

Are you a gang member or just a moron?

This is slashdot. Most slashdotters would be beaten to death by any gang they tried to join. I vote moron.

Re:Snitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114211)

A snitch is someone who reports activity without being affected himself. Google, however, delivers the Chrome browser. They are a party damaged by Microsoft's breach of their agreements to refrain from anti-competitive measures exploiting their operating system monopoly.

So the EU does not monitor Microsoft's compliance, and when the damaged party does, it is a snitch?

Horseradish.

Thank you google for standing up for our rights (4, Insightful)

detain (687995) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113787)

Its too bad slashdot has been reduced to articles like. I applaud google for helping out the individuals rights to choose what software they run on the computer, and find it shocking that the new slashdot owners are posting an article trying to shun google for helping in an anti-trust case. Aren't we supposed to be on the side of those people fighting for things like this? Next up our new slashdot overlords will be poking fun at the EFF.

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113809)

You always had a right to download another browser. People didn't even notice that the list of competing browsers was even missing for f*cks sake. Are you saying it's a user right to be spoon fed a list of competing products everywhere or was someone targeted because they have a deep bank account.

Why the hell isn't my shampoo bottle giving me the list of all other shampoo's I can use!11

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (0)

meerling (1487879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113831)

I've rather been of the opinion that if someone was too stupid to use IE to download a better browser, they didn't have enough computer literacy to use the other browser anyway.

I say using IE to get the other browser because I really don't expect a non-techie to know how to use terminal (or another non-browser method) to obtain one.

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (3, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113889)

Are you serious? What extra computer literacy do you need to use Firefox or Chrome?

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (1)

blackest_k (761565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114229)

The Internet is not a Microsoft product.

It may come as a surprise that many people pretty much believed that it was that or AOL.
Microsoft tried hard to make it one, what with active X and its other propitiatory technology it pushed hard to try to get entrenched.

Now we have choice, very rarely do we need a particular browser to be able to access a site and that was quite common at one time.

The computer literacy needed to use chrome or firefox? Simply to know that they exist and are as capable if not marginally more so than Microsofts offerings. That was a big change and one part of that change was the browser ballot page that Microsoft agreed to.

     

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114355)

The computer literacy needed to use chrome or firefox? Simply to know that they exist and are as capable if not marginally more so than Microsofts offerings. That was a big change and one part of that change was the browser ballot page that Microsoft agreed to.

Are there any figures for how many people actually downloaded an alternative browser due to the browser ballot page? Nobody I know who isn't interested in computers would even have bothered reading it.

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114341)

Are you serious? What extra computer literacy do you need to use Firefox or Chrome?

You need to have an ideological or technological interest in taking the time to download and learn the quirks of a new browser that in practice will do exactly the same as Internet Explorer for the normal user.

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113921)

Are you saying it's a user right to be spoon fed a list of competing products everywhere

We are talking about Google users here... so yes.

Re:Thank you google for standing up for our rights (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114307)

You've got that wrong.

Google is a service which gets its audience by doing nice things for people. (read: providing value) For all the things you might fear Google, they keep people coming back with pretty neat and entertaining stuff. They are capitalizing on good will and will defend that whenevery and whereever possible. It is their business model. (Exceptions exist... China)

In my mind, this is more "Tom and Jerry." Tom has spent billions on lawyers, lobbying, bribes/donations/contributions, pulling dirty tricks and stunts and more recently, Scroogled campaigns. Lots of Tom's efforts are comical failures but still caused Jerry a bit of trouble... there are more Jerrys than Google because I'm talking about lots of comical things like the SCO case, OOXML and all that sort of stuff you might read on Groklaw.

As the article is essentially baseless accusaiton, I'm not going to say "oh they snitched alright." And I'm not going to say they are justified or that they should have. (After all, anyone who hates Microsoft could have done it and there are a LOT of Microsoft haters out there... it could have been me!! Why does it have to be Google?) But I will say, that if it was one of Google's lawyers who did? Then this is Jerry escaping from a a Jerry-mouse sandwich, substituting himself for Tom's tail and then pulling the chair out from under Tom. As Tom sits down, he bites his tail off and flies around screaming which alerts the big bulldog in the yard to his presense and gets subsequently beaten.

The comical part is Microsoft did all the things necessary to set up the gag and Jerry, whoever it was, made minimal effort to strike a blow against Tom while defending his life.

The only unfortunate thing about this post is now I am hearing Tom and Jerry music in my head.... ... and SO ARE YOU!!!

it was EU's responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113789)

It only makes a difference, because it was not EU who recognized EU's responsibility in making sure MS lives up to it's obligations. And I hoped that slow as they are they are at least learning something. In vain.

So, doing the right thing is called "snitching"? (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113827)

Sad, sad, sad submitter. Reflects the intellectual poverty of one who has no other idea of this action than "snitching". The very word is negative and implies something is wrong with informing the authorities that Microsoft is breaking the law (again - what a surprise). Where did this even come from? Oh yeah, "snitches get stitches". Who created this meme? Oh yeah, drug dealers who wanted to intimidate the local population into silence. And now the media is going along with it without even thinking of the implications. Good job everyone.

Who is Adam Clark Estes? (4, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113863)

Who is Adam Clark Estes? I'd really like to know, because his "article" reads like it was written like a 5-year-old. "Ooooh, you can't snitch on people; the honour code is not to snitch! They are is not are playing fair! They is are doing what they're s'posed to do! They stoled my donut and lunch money but I didn't snitch! Snitches is are naughty!" Is he still in kindergarten?

His closing words in his "article": "Well, who looks triumphant now?"

Not you, Adam. But you do look like a moron.

Re:Who is Adam Clark Estes? (1)

Lorens (597774) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113933)

Who is Adam Clark Estes? I'd really like to know, because his "article" reads like it was written like a 5-year-old.

At five, it is true that children usually do not know the difference between "its" and "it's". I tried to parse "down" as "party-time" before my eyes went back and decided there shouldn't be a verb before "competitor". I thought it was the submitter, but it's from the TFA.

If they did (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113887)

They should apply for a crimestoppers [crimestoppers-uk.org] (snitch) reward

Honestly: WHO CARES? (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113891)

So somebody allegedly told the EU something that the EU would have found out if they did a minimum effort to monitor the agreement.

Big deal.

Next on Slahshdot: Where is my ass?

17+ months and the world didn't notice but Google? (3, Insightful)

edelbrp (62429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113901)

I don't get it (I'm not in the EU), but you might have thought more people would have noticed besides Google that the Browser Ballot was missing for 17-18 months? Seems odd.

Re:17+ months and the world didn't notice but Goog (3, Informative)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113929)

It is odd, and most likely not true.

It was Opera software who originally complained, an one would assume they have taken five minutes occasionally to check.

Re:17+ months and the world didn't notice but Goog (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113941)

I know for a fact it wasn't only, if at all, Google complaining about the missing ballot screen. I filed a complaint myself. I'd also be surprised if of all competitors Opera didn't file a complaint. The only thing I wonder is, whether my email with the complaint went directly to /dev/null. I've never received a reply.

Re:17+ months and the world didn't notice but Goog (1)

dintech (998802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114233)

17-18 months is about the time it takes before you absolutely have to reinstall windows again. :)

News by morons for morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113905)

...about morons. The new Slashdot. Remember to visit idle!

"Bullying Consumers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113917)

Including a web browser with an operating system is "bullying consumers"? Be serious.

Means nothing to MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113951)

A few hundred million fine every few years means nothing to MS. Its basically ordinary operating expenses, and even then, not that big of one.

Its. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43113965)

Jesus.

The ballot was down for 14 months. (3, Interesting)

Faluzeer (583626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43113997)

According to reports, the ballot was out of action for 14 months before the EU noticed. So if Google really did snitch, they most certainly did not do so in a timely manner.

This just seems to be pure speculation, given the length of time the ballot was down, it could be anyone or no one...

Redwood? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114009)

Where is Redwood Washington? Is it anywhere near Redmond?

Re:Redwood? (3, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114353)

But with a recent headline-stealing dispute between the Redwood, Washington company and Google,
it's competitor down in Mountain Diew, California...

redwood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114017)

>redwood

But...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114033)

I am confused with 2 things....

First of all..... nobody likes a snitch, right? I mean.... right?

Second...... isn't it the case that google is doing the same with their android and chrome OS system?
I mean in the end it is about and OS and it's browser (user should have browser choice in OS).... so that would mean that Android, IOS, Chrome OS and Max OS are also in violation.... no?

I think humans are stupid...

Abuse (2)

Wowsers (1151731) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114097)

If Google told on Microsoft, I have no problem with that. Now, Google should inform on Microsoft on trying to control the entire PC market and squash Operating System competition with "their" hated "Trusted computing" platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing [wikipedia.org] ..

Based on Microsoft's track record, how can you a) Trust Microsoft b) Trust ANY company .c) Leave control of your hardware to a corporation that does bidding of governments / media cartel - especially if they are foreign governments.

Re:Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114323)

Newsflash, ALL governments are foreign, including "your own".

People are afraid of "their" government, if it really was "their" government, why would they be afraid?

"tipped off European authorities TO..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114219)

It's "tipped off European authorities ABOUT antitrust concerns", not "to".

You Americans...

A long and noble tradition (1)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114243)

Competitors dobbing on each other to regulators. Shock horror.

Not going to cost MS anything (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114339)

It's going to cost Microsoft's users something, though, since that fine, if it is even upheld on appeal, will be integrated into the cost of Microsoft products.

Re:Not going to cost MS anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114397)

Microsoft prices prodcuts for maximum profit. This price does not depend of any fine they may have gotten.

The shareholders will pay however as it reduces profits.

No evidence Google was involved .. (4, Informative)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114381)

"Brussels punished Microsoft for failing to give at least 15m consumers a choice of web browser - a violation of a voluntary antitrust pact that was spotted and raised by Google and Opera, according to several people familiar with the case."

"Opera said it was "happy to see that the Commission is enforcing compliance with the commitment, which is critical to ensuring a genuine choice among web browsers for consumers". Google declined to comment."

Google tip-off leads to Microsoft EU penalty [ft.com]

Where is Redwood, WA?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43114575)

I can haz engrish speaking?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?