Competition Authorities and Search


Posted by Dave Heiner 
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel

Government competition agencies are increasingly focused on Google’s growing power in search and online advertising. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission have all determined that Google is dominant in certain markets, including search advertising. In late 2008 the DOJ was prepared to go to court to block Google’s attempt to partner with its largest search rival, Yahoo!.  Last year the DOJ told a federal court that Google’s book search plan is anticompetitive in several respects. (One big problem is that Google would help itself to essentially exclusive rights to tens of millions of books—effectively locking out everyone else.) Last week the DOJ reiterated that view in court, even after Google had an opportunity to address the DOJ’s concerns. This week came news that the European Commission is investigating various aspects of Google’s conduct, including claims of retaliation, exclusivity and manipulation of search results to disadvantage rivals. The European Commission is likely to treat these cases quite seriously, given that Google’s share of search and search advertising is north of 95% in many European countries.

Google’s public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere—at Microsoft. Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors.

It’s worth asking whether Google’s response really addresses the concerns that have been raised. Complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors. (Believe me, I know: I’ve been chief competition counsel at Microsoft since 1994, so I’ve seen plenty of competitor complaints.  Novell, when current Google CEO Eric Schmidt was at the helm, was never hesitant about complaining to regulators about Microsoft. Google hasn’t been shy about raising antitrust concerns about Microsoft in the last few years, either.) This is the way that competition law agencies function: They look to competitors in the first instance to understand how particular markets operate, the practices of dominant firms and the competitive significance of those practices.

Of course, as we have always said, it is vitally important that competition law authorities also listen to and assess the views of customers, business partners and everyone else affected by a dominant player’s business practices. Ultimately what’s important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive.

In this instance, there has been no shortage of affected voices. A quick Internet search will surface the growing concerns that have been raised by upstart innovators such as Ciao (owned by Microsoft), Foundem and ejustice.fr, as well as from industry groups such as the Federation of German Newspaper Publishers and The Association of German Magazine Publishers. Publishers, advertisers, advertising agencies and others want to see real competition in search and online advertising. As Google’s power has grown in recent years, we’ve increasingly heard complaints from a range of firms—large and small—about a wide variety of Google business practices. Some of the complaints just reflect aggressive business stances taken by Google. Some reflect the secrecy with which Google operates in many areas. Some appear to raise serious antitrust issues. As you might expect, many concerned companies have come to us and asked us for our reaction and even for advice. When their antitrust concerns appear to be substantial, we suggest that firms talk to the competition law agencies. (Complaining to Microsoft won’t do much good.)

As reflected in the news earlier this week, firms voicing these complaints have started to meet with competition law agencies, confidentially. (Firms – especially smaller companies – are often reluctant to voice their antitrust concerns publicly because they feel that they must continue to do business with Google and do not want to jeopardize their relationship with them.) Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission. The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo! and Microsoft. As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google—since that is the focus of the partnership. We told them what we know about how Google is doing business. A lot of that entails explaining the search advertising business, which is complex. Some of that inevitably gets into Google practices that may be harming publishers, advertisers and competition in search and online advertising.

All of this is quite important because search is so central to how people navigate the Internet, and because advertising is the main monetization mechanism for a wide range of Web sites and Web services. Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google. That can be a problem because Google’s business is helped along by significant network effects (just like the PC operating system business). Search engine algorithms “learn” by observing how users interact with search results. Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.

These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. Microsoft’s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations  in areas that are less dependent on volume. But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms. That is why Microsoft and Yahoo! are combining their search volumes. And that is why we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume.

Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success. Nor should firms be punished just because a particular business practice may harm a rival—competition on the merits can do that, too. That is a position that Microsoft has long espoused, and we’re sticking to it. Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly. Ultimately the competition law agencies will have to decide whether or not Google’s practices should be seen as illegal.

Comments (67)

  1. medyum says:

    thank you very much web page site beatiful

  2. Philip says:

    I find this article to be more than a little self-serving. Considering that Microsoft had utterly and completely dominated the desktop market for literally decades, and leveraged that into domination, for a time, of the browser wars, and still holds a monopoly on office applications… yet Microsoft has blithely maintained it is not a monopoly. It's a good thing you are only trying to preach to the "faithful," anyone with an ounce of sense and reasoning ability can see right through you. Further, Google search dominates because of quality, and has from the beginning. There are many search options, and Google does not try to lock anyone in, nor does it in anyway force people to use it. It's a web page people choose to use because of it's quality, not because it is preloaded on their PC from the time the open the box (in most cases). I know of other companies that does that… and it is Microsoft… and Apple.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Of all people to go complaining to the feds about antitrust issues… Pot, meet kettle.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Google generally does not allow other search engines to use their Adwords feed unless the search engine agrees to use Google's algorithmic search results as well.  For me, this is a clear case of using a monopoly in one market (search advertising) to maintain a monopoly in another market (algorithmic search).  The network effect in the search advertising market is much more important than in the search market (more advertisers equals larger keyword coverage and higher bids).  The Microsoft-Yahoo merger was largely driven by an attempt to close the 40% gap in per search revenue between Adwords and the Microsoft/Yahoo ad networks.    

  5. Anonymous says:

    Bring back memories.    Internet Explorer versus Netscape.    It all depends on whose ox is geting gored!

  6. Anonymous says:

    can't compete on your own merits, throw the lawyers at em

  7. Anonymous says:

    Micro$oft is the King of playing monopoly game. What you can expect from Micro$oft when they can't play the fair game?    Totally Stupid!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Why don't you cry about it. If people don't want to use Google they don't have to. In addition, whining about their technical advantage is a cop out. You can't create a better product than Google because of network effects? You want Google to make less useful product or do you want Google to share traffic with you? Share their log files? Ridiculous. Just ridiculous a position, coming from Microsoft no less.

  9. Anonymous says:

    As someone who uses AdWords to promote business, I am happy that Google is being exposed – even if that comes from MS. I am happy that they are being challenged in Search – even if it comes from MS. I am very happy.    Google, in the pretext of "open source", does a lot of things that many people are not aware. For instance, they created Android, and heavily mention that it is open source. However, they have only made over 8 million lines of code public from 12 million plus lines. From that 8 million, over 7 million lines of code are from the linux kernel it is built on top of. Where is the "open" part of open source here?    The statement MS is making is rather accurate – they do have a model to lock advertisers. Their search algorithm is not fair at all. Most people, including me, find it unfair that MS bundled IE with Windows. GOOG is similar – when you search for an address, they bundle their maps application into search. When you search for an item, they bundle Froogle into search. If you are a company that wants to compete in maps arena, you have an impossible task ahead of you. They really do not have "net neutrality here" – which is a shame for a company that really claims to be a big proponent of net neutrality.    I can go on and on. As an advertiser, I am forced to use Google because of its dominance, and it has not been fair at all – their terms and conditions keep changing, it is hard to keep up with it. If you compete in an area they compete in, your site will get ranked lower because of the "bundling". It is an unfair monopoly.. the regulators need to understand that bundling can happen with web apps too – not just native desktop apps.

  10. Anonymous says:

    you guys should be ashamed of yourselves

  11. Anonymous says:

    i look forward to the day when microsoft's business declines significantly and consumers are better off for it.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft complaining of unfair businesses practices once they finally start to have some real competition? How pathetic

  13. Anonymous says:

    Prima facie, it looks like the pot calling the kettle black, we will find out shortly who's at fault here. We do need a real competitor in search results just to keep big G awaken!

  14. Anonymous says:

    I'm always surprised to see how many people still not realize how fast the world is changing and how the evil has changed his home. Microsoft changed in the last 10 years but people loves to continue to hate it instead of realize where's the next 10 years problem is going to be.  If you are an advertiser, a media agency or a publisher you have a clear idea of the monopoly you have to deal with. Ad Rates, Indexing Transparency are just two of the main issue several industries are facing because of Google. Its power and the way Google is using it is really a matter of concern when you are heavily dependant by Google … they decide if you live or die. No doubts about that

  15. Anonymous says:

    Google is using its Search and other products to kill innovation in many areas. Take the recent Google Buzz. We had a similar product for almost a year and Google literally copied the product from us and used Gmail to launch it and instantly gaining 176 million subscribers.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Now they're LOSING, … they're doing such childish acts. Google deserve all the success they had.

  17. Anonymous says:

    In french we say : "Chacun à son tour chez le coiffeur"  Google deserves what is happening to it as it obviously did not learn all which could have been learnt from Microsoft errors.  @Faisal  So i guess that you agree that Microsoft also deserve the success of Windows and several other products, right ?  Otherwise you would be an hypocritical.  

  18. Anonymous says:

    Good on you.  Google' has a draconic monopoly on web search, mapping, news search and more.  They are dangeours to publishers, agencies, competitors and worst of all, other start-ups which try to compete with them.    The DOJ should take them down, making sure their are unable to leverage their monopoly in search to harm the ecosystem.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Look who's talking. Getthefacts, Microsoft, getthefacts…  

  20. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft for the first time has a competitor they cannot crush, buy-out, or otherwise eliminate. So what do they do? Go crying to the courts.    Babies!

  21. Anonymous says:

    Google has created a better product than their competitors, assisted by the flawed transition from Overture to Yahoo Search Marketing.    

    However, their advertising reach is becoming too large now … they're on the verge of being able to dictate terms to large segments of the market, which hurts competition.    

    Good to see them being called on it.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Android and the forth coming Chrome OS are perfect examples of using your monoply in one market to extend and strengthen your existing monoply.  Give Android away for below established market value or free and destroy your competition.  Best case you create a new monoply, and worst case you defend your old monoply.  Microsoft and Apple cannot compete in the long term with a company that gives away a product meant to drive them out the market.      The EU should regulate these emerging markets (Android, Chrome) to force competition in Google's search monoply.  Microsoft needs to get aggressive though, if the US and EU don't regulate these market's they should start giving away the advertising back-end for free or next to nothing.      Google will put Microsoft out of business in less than 20 years, unless they realize that fighting a cloned version of themselves.  It's bet the company time for Microsoft…    

  23. Anonymous says:

    i look forward to the day when microsoft's business declines significantly and consumers are better off for it.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Congress doesn't always keep up with industry.  For instance, MSFT did some stupid things back when. But the fully picture was clouded by Congress' ineffective efforts to keep up with industry trends.  If barrier to entry into a marketplace is one of the primary pillars against MSFT back then, why didn't the millions of people downloading Netscape count?    Anyways, this is far more important because it involves straight up information.  No company should control 70% + access to info or info in general.  That's too much control that would have far reaching 'network' effects of many aspects of our life.  With control of that much info, would you want Google or Bing being in the back pockets of any government?    Yeah, it's that serious folks.  Pay attention.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Er, so you are complaining because Google locks out competitors? Really? Really?   What company do you work for?     Dude, you work for the center of the universe of locking out competitors.     Amazing.     Simply amazing.     Back to my Mac….    

  26. Anonymous says:

    Consumers are losing because they don't find better results because search innovation has stopped. On the other side, advertisers are stuck with on advertising gateway. Imagine if there was only one publisher say NYT serving 95% of Europe, how would you negotiate a search deal with them?    I have no clue why people think search sites whether Google or Bing is any innovative? They are still pathetic stupid software. Indexing the whole web and copying it on your server was never innovative. Indexing started way back in 1980s and search is as old. All they did was 'copy' the web for indexing.    Google never deserved any patents to Pagerank (a way of sorting results – so sick). And AdSense? Was advertising done on irrelevant websites before AdSense?     Google deserves everything that is happening to them. They have killed and try to kill all more innovative vertical search engines out of the market with their marketshare and poor algorithms.    Google has not improved its search results in last 10 years and that is killing innovation. It is still the same because it is enjoying a monopoly.    

  27. Anonymous says:

    Pure hypocrisy! M$FT is evil, it is just a matter of fact, you will never get rid of this label unless you change the name of the company.     Everybody understands that all recent attacks on google are directly or indirectly financed by M$FT.

  28. Anonymous says:

    The hypocrisy is exceeded only by chutzpah. You are SERIOUSLY complaining,    "we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume." ????    This from the company that invented lock in OS contracts with PC vendors?  The company that's repeatedly been found to be an illegal monopoly?  The company that paid billions of Euros in fines because its behavior?  The company invented .doc, .xls, .ppt  and Exchange proprietary file formats to stifle competition?  The company that developed DirectX to stymie OpenGL?  The company that is known for its "embrace, extend, pollute, control" approach to all open standards?  The company that has famously compared Linux to "cancer" and "communism".    It is flat out amazing that you have the nerve to make this complaint.    Google has no "lock in"; anyone can switch to a new search engine at any time with a single click! Google's dominance was earned, and is maintained by BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT, something you might try yourselves. Once upon a time, there were other search engines, and Google was a very minor player competing against things like Alta Vista, et al. Google won because their approach was, and remains, BETTER than the competitors.    Stop whining or get out of the business. You guys have grown fat and dumb living off the legacy lock in that you obtained illegally for desktop OS and Office. Maybe you should just stick to that.

  29. Anonymous says:

    The real way to argue monopoly is to allege the corruption of culture. Sites like Ripoff Report which are highly favored in the Google search engine spread lies and slander across the internet resuling in a loss of consumer confidence. If Google remains dominant they will literally dictate and determine the American culture. I have ideas on how to reduce Google's market share.

  30. Anonymous says:

    My father would have said: The shoe is on the other foot now.     How does it feel to be squashed?     Oh, and Mr. Counselor. don't forget this:  http://www.justice.gov/…/msjudgex.htm    

  31. Anonymous says:

    Completely agree with this:        The hypocrisy is exceeded only by chutzpah. You are SERIOUSLY complaining,        "we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume." ????        This from the company that invented lock in OS contracts with PC vendors?        The company that's repeatedly been found to be an illegal monopoly?        The company that paid billions of Euros in fines because its behavior?        The company invented .doc, .xls, .ppt  and Exchange proprietary file formats to stifle competition?        The company that developed DirectX to stymie OpenGL?        The company that is known for its "embrace, extend, pollute, control" approach to all open standards?        The company that has famously compared Linux to "cancer" and "communism".        It is flat out amazing that you have the nerve to make this complaint.        Google has no "lock in"; anyone can switch to a new search engine at any time with a single click! Google's dominance was earned, and is maintained by BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT, something you might try yourselves. Once upon a time, there were other search engines, and Google was a very minor player competing against things like Alta Vista, et al. Google won because their approach was, and remains, BETTER than the competitors.        Stop whining or get out of the business. You guys have grown fat and dumb living off the legacy lock in that you obtained illegally for desktop OS and Office. Maybe you should just stick to that.    MSFT?WTF!!! this is an joke. If "CarrotSoft" wouldn't create one big crrap product, wouldn't be afraid of competition.   GOOOOOD ON YOU GOOOOOGLE!!!  At least one reasonable company in this industry. that doesn't take the crrap from others like others.   Yahoo shame on you getting together with the "BIGGEST LOOSER"   As big 'CarrotSoft' is as big his fall WILL BE…   Personally can't wait for this moment. As they products are crrap as they mentality is on frozen point.   CarrotSOFT go back to hell… your owner Bill is an thief and liar, so there is no wonder he wants everything for him F..ING self…  F…U… 'CarrotSOFT' and all your ideology….    Again…  GOOOOOD on you GOOOOOGLE…. kick their arses…

  32. Anonymous says:

    So Active-x, Sharepoint now works with any browser and any platform without any proprietary requirement to web developers or OS?  Cool

  33. Anonymous says:

    I completely agree with Fred:   The hypocrisy is exceeded only by chutzpah. You are SERIOUSLY complaining,    "we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume." ????    This from the company that invented lock in OS contracts with PC vendors?    The company that's repeatedly been found to be an illegal monopoly?    The company that paid billions of Euros in fines because its behavior?    The company invented .doc, .xls, .ppt  and Exchange proprietary file formats to stifle competition?    The company that developed DirectX to stymie OpenGL?    The company that is known for its "embrace, extend, pollute, control" approach to all open standards?    The company that has famously compared Linux to "cancer" and "communism".    It is flat out amazing that you have the nerve to make this complaint.    Google has no "lock in"; anyone can switch to a new search engine at any time with a single click! Google's dominance was earned, and is maintained by BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT, something you might try yourselves. Once upon a time, there were other search engines, and Google was a very minor player competing against things like Alta Vista, et al. Google won because their approach was, and remains, BETTER than the competitors.    Stop whining or get out of the business. You guys have grown fat and dumb living off the legacy lock in that you obtained illegally for desktop OS and Office. Maybe you should just stick to that.        This guy is so right on everything he says.    Microsoft is the biggest monopolist in the world and does everything to not loose a single point of this monopoly. We need a company like Google who's got enough power and money to take away a part of Microsofts market share.    Microsoft is always lying and they do everything they can to lock people in.    Why doesn't Microsoft create Silverlight for Linux for themselves? Why do other have to develop a Silverlight clone which lies way back in features? Microsoft, develop Silverlight for yourself and do it for all operating systems at the same time, so everyone has the same features on every operating system!    Why does Microsoft keep on spamming me at my Hotmail address telling me Internet Explorer 8 is the only web browser giving me the full Hotmail experience? Don't give Internet Explorer 8 a better experience than other browsers, but give every browser the same experience!    Why tells Microsoft Office 2010 its users they can choose between Microsofts format and the open document format and then tells its users the open document format doesn't support all features? Then work together with the maintainers of the open document format so the open document format will have the same features as your own format and your format can be opened in OpenOffice.org and the open documents can be opened in your office suite without any problems. Works together with those other developers to get the same set of features and make them completely compatible across different office suites and operating systems.    But Microsoft doesn't do this, because its afraid to loose some of their incredibly high market share. Microsoft you're a company which is always lying and you do everything to lock people in. Microsoft you're a disgusting company with your deals with DELL, HP, Acer and all the other system builders to ensure they install Windows and a trial of Microsoft Office on their systems.    But now there's Google which is to big for Microsoft to compete with or buy-out and now Microsoft starts to cry, because they're really afarid of loosing market share.    Like qka said:  "Microsoft for the first time has a competitor they cannot crush, buy-out, or otherwise eliminate. So what do they do? Go crying to the courts.    Babies!"    And he's so right! Microsoft is afrais, because Google has so much power and money. Microsoft sees the succes of Google and there browser Google Chrome. Microsoft is afraid Google Chrome will eat even more of the market share of Internet Explorer and they're afraid of Google Chome OS. What will happen if Google Chrome OS is as populair as the Google Chrome browser? Microsoft is really afraid of loosing market share and they do everything to prevent Google from taking away market share of Windows and to take away even more market share of Internet Explorer. But Google is too powerfull to buy and, because Microsoft just isn't a company who competes in a fair way they just go to court.    Really, look who's talking about unfair business and high market share. Microsoft, I really hope Google will only grow bigger and bigger and they'll completely crush Microsoft and we can say "Goodbye" to Microsoft. I really hope Google Chrome OS will be a great success and we'll be free of Microsoft.    People of this world:  Be wise and don't buy any products from this disgusting company. Just install a Linux distribution like Ubuntu on your system, use a other browser like Firefox or Google Chrome, use OpenOffice.org or buy a system from Apple or wait till you can buy a system with Google Chrome OS. I don't care which operating system, browser or office suite you use, as long as it isn't a product from these liars!

  34. Anonymous says:

    Pot calling kettle black?    This made my day!

  35. Anonymous says:

    hahah Microsoft you bunch of little girls.     You have performed this same tactic for years now on all of your competitors but now when it happens to you; you cry foul play.    Go Google 100% of the way!

  36. Anonymous says:

    You people are hopelessly biased against MSFT.  Someone accuses MSFT of anti-competitive practices, you laugh/get angry at MSFT.  MSFT accuses someone else of anti-competitive practices, you, again, laugh/get angry at MSFT.  MSFT wasn't, I believe, the one who complained to EU against Google.   You're just looking for a point on which to complain about MS. MS could go open-source, and donate everything it had, and you'd still say something like, "they were just going bankrupt, so they did that to preserve their dignity."     And microsoft, get better public relation people. The world won't change. People are mindless drones captured by marketing.

  37. Anonymous says:

    hahahah. nice microsoft site! I love the lack of facts.

  38. Anonymous says:

    What a load of crap! Google is far from being a monopoly when compared to the position Microsoft has held for YEARS. Get a life.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Every body just hold your horses here,  I myself would love to see M$ hit the dust from a great hight but the thing is one one company should have any monopoly over the Internet and that is already here for Google.    They have got where they are on the back of Linux yet they don't support the Linux foundation, they don't give a toss about subscribing to the Linux kernel, they have already shown that by pulling out with their chrome and android developments so what are their plans I'd like to know,     Yes they are just like M$ they want to control the Internet, they want to control mobile phones  but the way they are doing it is worst than Microsoft forced sales, Microsoft is sneaking round and trying to take over Linux to get their monopoly back, (which won't happen), but Google is and has taken over where M$ has left off     We don't want, don't need to be controlled by any company. Be it M$ or Google so I am glad everybody is jumping on Google's back they need pulling down a few pegs,  and Europe will do it like they did with M$     Are you listening no company should have monopoly, No company should have control over our lives and the things we do. No company should ram advertisements down our throats every minute of every day. While we are on the net.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft is just pissed they don't know or can't use (due to patents) Google's code… So when patents don't work your way you play dirty…    What a double standard

  41. Anonymous says:

    One of the world's largest monopolies whining. How pathetic you look. Not going to get any sympathy from anyone you racketeering extortionists.

  42. Anonymous says:

    What? It seems that Microsoft desperately afraid of Google?

  43. Anonymous says:

     Well  !  I'm  seok  soo,kim  from  Seoul.  Not  yet  I  have  a  real  negotiation  of  insider  from  the  Microsoft.  I  think  The  Microsoft  must  change  into  the  real  negotiation  progressively  for  making  our  successful  Revolution,  for  keeping  Microsoft's  Market  around  the  World.  Now  I  need  a  real  negotiation  with  the  Microsoft  for  the  future,  for  us.  not  competitors.  How  to  make  up  the  equity  real  between  Microsoft  and  me  ?  I  think  The  dominant  idea,  project,…from  me  can  control  the  Microsoft  in  the  future.  Urgently,  I  need  every  realization  by  all  means  in  my  life.  from  kss  !  God  bless  you  !

  44. Anonymous says:

    I have a feeling that walletless is a Microsoft employee. I have seen his posting on several forums that discuss this issue now, and each and every one of them is identical!

  45. Anonymous says:

    I have to concur with most of what I've read here.  A behemoth corporation with power-patenting and lobbying accusing Google of anti-competitive behaviour?  OMG, that is funny!  Almost as funny as using any Microsoft products…..or trying at least.      You had the chance to kill Google years ago, but then as now you were monumentally out of toush with your market and customers.  Keep churning out the rubbish stuff that lines your investors' pockets.      Sorry, I just can't stop laughing…..

  46. Anonymous says:

    complaints from a range of firms—large and small—about a wide variety of Google business practices  – why don't you give us one example ?    Some of the complaints just reflect aggressive business stances taken by Google.   – why don't you give us one example ?    Some reflect the secrecy with which Google operates in many areas.  – why don't you give us one example ?    Some appear to raise serious antitrust issues  – why don't you give us one example ?    claims of retaliation, exclusivity and manipulation of search results to disadvantage rivals  – why don't you give us one example ?    Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others  – Why don't recognize this is true for all searches?     "because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google."  – really? Even when Google was an upstart ?     "Microsoft’s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations"  – Why did you fail to innovate ever since Google was an upstart?    When I go shopping for a PC I can only see MS ones (or expensive Macs) on sale, even that Linux is free and as good as Windows  – why don't you explain us why?    When people buy a win PC's they all come only with your IE browser.  – why don't you explain us why?    From April in Europe, when people buy a win PC's, it will offer the freedom to choose from various browsers.  – why don't you explain us why the EU imposed this to you?     It never ever happened any time in any place that a user was not free to choose it's preferred search engine.  – Do you know why?   Because any operator ever abused from it's dominant position.    In your opinion did MS sometime abused from it's dominant position in the Operation System market?

  47. Anonymous says:

    Tied their adwords stream to search results, really? That your COMPLAINT?    When is Microsoft releasing Office for Solaris? Office for Linux? Office for BSD? No? Because it's Tied To Windows.    When is Microsoft releasing Internet Explorer for Solaris, Linux or BSD? No? Because it's TIED TO WINDOWS.    Media Player? IIS? Silverlight?    How about a $50 Microsoft Windows API implementation, like a WINE that works, that allows me to use Microsoft products directly and successfully on other platforms?    No, because every product Microsoft makes is carefully, deliberately and with malice and forethought, Tied To Windows.    Just in case anyone from Microsoft ever reads these comments, let me tell you that I tried MSN search, I tried Bing, and they simply didn't work for me. Microsoft's products tend to be heavy on graphics and light on results, which is the exact opposite of what I am looking for.    Around 1995, I wrote that if Microsoft were smart and released Office for Linux and other OSs, they would utterly OWN the office for a century. But no, you stuck with this idiot "Everything On Windows" policy (whoever thought that up should have his stock options canceled).    When I.E. came out, had it been released for Win, Mac, Lin, BSD, etc, again Microsoft would have owned the browser space. But no, "Everything On Windows."    Microsoft created OpenOffice, FireFox and Desktop Linux through your own avaricious policies.    The hypocrisy of this article, Mr. Heiner, is legion. That this hypocrisy is endemic to everything Microsoft puts out is one good reason I have not used or advocated any Microsoft product since Win95.

  48. Anonymous says:

    I've always said that CHUTZPAH and lack of scruples were the overwhelming factors in M$'s success. WIth this, you've gone past irony and obliviousness to self-parody.

  49. Anonymous says:

    ok ok, now we're done saying aha to MS, don't go back being sheeple by flocking to google, which is of course the new MS. Go to IXQuick, the most private search engine.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Some of the posters on this page might benefit by a dose of the real world.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft was ASKED, they DID NOT initiate the complaints for goodness sake.  Some imbeciles appear to be so raving anti M/S, that the underlaying facts are irrelevant. If you don't like them, then don't use them, but posting inane bullshit that isn't even true is beyond belief.  

  52. Anonymous says:

    It doesn't help to hear one side of the story here.

  53. Anonymous says:

    All of this is quite important because search is so central to how people navigate the Internet    Coming from a company with a 20 years history of market abuse of operating system and internet browser.

  54. Anonymous says:

    – why don't you give us one example ?    Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others  – Why don't recognize this is true for all searches?     "because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google."  – really

  55. Anonymous says:

    OMG LOL WTF. Why don't you people just FOAD?

  56. Anonymous says:

    It's time to get paid. Is the only way to file a civil lawsuit?

  57. Anonymous says:

    Part of the story at http://www.aok.tv  and yes it's Microsoft trying to stop the little guy but now he's not so little anymore.     http://Www.WorldWideWeb.tv

  58. Anonymous says:

    you are really good at it topic. You are so good to tell us it.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Firstly the posting says nothing really other than innuendo against Google.    Secondly one post suggests that Google ties it's search to its advertising. If it isn't stating the obvious the revenue from advertising only exists because of the search; that is their business just like a newspaper makes money putting adverts throughout so they get seen by people reading news. The two cannot be separated or there is no business.

  60. Anonymous says:

    I tend to think, judging by the comments, that many people simply do not understand what Microsoft is saying. They are not being critical of Google at all in a "we will get them" or a "its us against them" sense. In fact, they are pointing out true fact concerning Google. Never once did Microsoft complain in the above, instead they have simply stated fact, fact to which Google admits in their practices and are clearly documented as all you have to do is be an advertiser and read the agreement and try to keep up with the almost constant changes which increasingly leverage well being away from the advertiser and the individual in Google's favor.    You people taking the time to critique Microsoft here for this have wasted your time. Obviously you do not understand the implications for your own internet use in the very near future, obviously you do not understand how this will impact every aspect of your on-line life – everything from browsing to games will be impacted – and obviously you do not understand the far reaching consequences of anti-competition and anti-trust with the higher pricing and forced selection of products which will be shoved down your throat till you gag, with no choice available to you. If it continues you will not even be able to start up a browser, any browser, on any system PC or console, without a good 10 to 15 minutes of commercials before you can surf the web, and don't you believe for one minute there are not plans for this.    Although I have no special loyality to Microsoft, and have been at odds with them myself in the past, I see their point and thank them for such a clear and understandable presentation of the facts, and a logical, concise, exploration of the subject.

  61. Anonymous says:

    what a joke.     I use google cause it works in the browser of MY choice.    can't say that about microsoft web pages.    

  62. Anonymous says:

    i support goggle on this one      microsoft is far worse then google on many front in terms of competitive practices google is an innovator

  63. Anonymous says:

    I can't support Google on this one. Yes the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors Microsoft, and microsoft's competitive practices has no effect on this. Google is controlling search and online advertising. Bing is a real competitor to Google. this is good……. I support microsoft on this.

  64. Anonymous says:

    This really seems like a silly thing to complain about.  If Google didn't come up with great products, they wouldn't have such a huge amount of market control.  The same can be said of Microsoft: they're the biggest because most people would say that their products are the best.  When it comes down to it, Google has cornered the market on things because of innovation.    I am no lawyer, but it seems odd to me that things such as competition cases exist; it seems like a way for companies to take down the competition if they can't keep up.  Strictly speaking, the ideal market is on in which there is no competition.  In coming up with so many new ideas, Google is becoming the only provider in these new markets.  Every company is trying to come up with ways in which they are different or they are the only provider of certain features.  From where I stand, it appears that much of this originates from money.  Google doesn't charge their users for any services (as far as I know), so they are driving their competition out because no one can compete with "free".    I realize that there's always some sort of price to pay for anything that's "free"; however, many of the services that Google has been innovating are for the greater good and advancement of humanity.  Google Books, for example, will help much in the way of education.  Teachers and students no longer need worry about loosing or damaging books because each student who has access to a computer will have a virtual library at their fingertips.  Schools will also be freed from the burden of buying superfluous amounts of books, so they can put the money saved into improving reading programs or other necessary solutions.    The world would be better off not worrying about who is suing whom; rather, we should be coming up with ways to make everyone's lives better.  We're all in this together and the more we pull together, the further we can push the limits of human possibility.  Why continue to bite back each source of competition rather than work together to stride forward?

  65. Anonymous says:

    Face it; Google is a monopoly and behaves like one. There is no web publisher, regardless of size, that has not been and is not now directly effected by Google's behavior — whether that behavior comes from beneficially intended rules, or the arrogant and inconsiderate way that their rules are enforced, or the just plain bullying and rough-handling by Google of small scale publishers.    I don't know what it was or what the exact moment was, but sometime back around 2000, Google lost sight of itself and its guiding principle to not be evil. I don't say it is their intention to do harm, but they do and it's just been a fact of life on the web since around that time.    And face this also; there is no player that can go one-on-one with Google — not even the governments of the US or of China. But the governments of the US &/or Europe teamed up with the legal bench at Microsoft can definitely bring enough game to make Google re-evaluate its behaviors and maybe even its sense of who it is.    Love them or not, in this case, Microsoft is the big guy the rest of us need to help Google remember its place in our web neighborhood.    I'm glad that Microsoft is taking this on. I'd be delighted to join if only for moral support.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Interesting article. I totally agree with Mike Pepper.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Dell XPS 710 H2C is probably one of the hottest and top-notch personal computers there is in terms of performance, with gamers in mind as the target this beast costs quite less.