Does Anyone Know about the Search? Search Discuss Does Anyone Know about the Search? in the Vista Features forums; As someone who has websites that rank very well in MSN, I am curious as to how search might be integrated into Vista. Also how will they avoid anti-trust ...

[triumph]

As someone who has websites that rank very well in MSN, I am curious as to how search might be integrated into Vista. Also how will they avoid anti-trust charges from the likes of Google if they do not provide equal access?

[JoshW02@hotmail.co.uk]

From what I know Googles case is supid for MSN will be defalt (I think thats fair) but it can be changed letting users pick I belive MS won case!

[dazzlin]

That's correct, Josh. MS won that case. The search issue is not an issue.

[W.Harbaugh]

to avoid anti-trust they will allow the default engine to be changed EXTREMELY easily...like offering a choice on the first boot up...

[ninikins]

Ok at least we'll be able to change it then..not saying that I wont be using google but I like to make my own decisions at least

[W.Harbaugh]

It's not so much the choices...but the RIGHT to make choices if you catch my drift even if there is only one choice....

[triumph]

Did they win the case or was it settled to the point that they had to allow access to other internet providers on their desktop.

I admit my recollection is fuzzy, but I am pretty sure that the way they handled third party providers in windows changed because of the court case.


My research into it is odd though.. The first two recaps of the anti-trust litigation both end with a Judge ordering Microsoft to be split into two companies. I completely forgot about that. Also know it did not happen. I am trying to fill in the rest of the story.

[dazzlin]

Two different cases, Triumph. The latest case was just a few weeks ago if memory serves me, and Google was belly-aching about the search default. MSN won that case hands down. And of course, while Google was whining, they were also making their own deal with Dell to do the same thing on all Dell machines. Silly stuff.

[triumph]

A little more research shows me that the judge ruling did not stand, but that they settled the anti-trust case.

Included in that was not giving priority to one ISP over another, for example.

SVs and other parties will benefit from the consent decree in other important ways, apart from the ability to promote their offerings via new agreements with OEMs.

Desktop placement. Microsoft may not enter into any agreement in which it offers favorable desktop placement to an ISV, ISP, or content provider in exchange for a promise to refrain from using or promoting a non-Microsoft middleware product. This will make it easier for these parties to enter into and maintain mutually beneficial relationships against Microsoft's wishes.

For example, in summer 2001, Microsoft and AOL were renegotiating a contract that had put an AOL icon in the "Online Services" folder of every Windows desktop PC. AOL also had an existing agreement to bundle RealNetworks' RealPlayer with AOL's access software. According to AOL, Microsoft offered it a deal: AOL could keep its place in the Online Services folder if it dropped its agreement with RealNetworks and bundled the Windows Media Player instead. (Microsoft denies this account; see "AOL and Microsoft: Nothing to Talk About" on page 28 of the Aug. 2001 Update.) Under the consent decree, this kind of agreement would be illegal.

No exclusive distribution deals. Microsoft may not offer any form of consideration to any OEM, hardware vendor, ISV, ISP, online service, or Internet content provider on the condition that these parties distribute, use, promote, or support the Windows OS or any Microsoft middleware product exclusively or in any fixed percentage.

Microsoft can still pay a bounty to these partners—for example, it could pay an OEM US$35 a head for each system purchaser who chooses MSN Internet Access. But other companies can offer OEMs similar bounties, allowing them to compete more effectively.

Alternate desktop platforms. Microsoft may not enter into any agreement with any ISV that denies them consideration if they develop, use, distribute, or promote an alternate desktop OS, or any product that runs on an alternate desktop OS. This provision pointedly excludes the server OS market, where Microsoft faces its greatest competition. Nonetheless, if an ISV finds it commercially viable to develop for the Mac or for a desktop version of Linux, it can do so without fearing retaliation.

Disclosure of APIs. Microsoft must disclose all APIs in the desktop OS that are used by Microsoft middleware products to communicate with the OS. This applies even if the middleware products are updates or patches released between versions of an OS. So, for example, Microsoft might put out an updated version of Windows Media Player, with new functionality enabled by previously undocumented APIs in Windows. However, it must provide these same APIs to competitors no later than the last major beta release of this update. This will make it possible for competitors (such as RealNetworks) to offer updates with similar functionality in a reasonably timely manner.

This provision won't lead to a whole new generation of non-Microsoft software, though, because it does not apply to applications such as Office that Microsoft distributes separately from Windows. In addition, this provision says nothing about middleware-to-middleware APIs. For example, IE might use a Windows Media Player API to incorporate Media Player's video playback functionality within the Web browser. Microsoft might not have to disclose this API to give Netscape Navigator the same ability.

Disclosure of communication protocols. Microsoft must make available all protocols that the desktop version of Windows uses to interoperate natively with a Microsoft server OS. This could make it easier for ISVs to create Windows-based clients that interoperate natively with Windows servers, and to create server products that mimic certain functions of a Windows server. Examples of covered communication protocols could include Microsoft’s implementation of TCP/IP and the Server Messenger Block (SMB) protocol used for file operations (such as file access and transfer) between clients and servers.

Authentication protocols are specifically excluded from this provision. Without this exception, Microsoft could have been forced to disclose, with no restrictions, all the details of Windows 2000's extensions to the Kerberos authentication protocol. In turn, this could have allowed a competitor such as Sun to build software mimicking the functions of a Windows 2000 domain controller (as Sun and others did for Windows NT 4.0 domain controllers).

Basically they could not force placement of MSN, for example in the operating system. Even though they settled the case, I think doing the same thing again with search would be a problem, so unless they want to go back to court, I would suspect they would provide alternative search opportunities for their competitiors.

A good synopsis of the settlement is here:

http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com.../0102eotas.htm

[dazzlin]

Ok, just to be clear - Vista does easily allow alternatives. It's not an issue, and has been settled already.