...and today, surprise surprise, this turns up:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/eu-launches-preliminary-antitrust-probe-for-google/ 

 

EU launches preliminary antitrust probe against Google

Now that Microsoft's browser selection story story is all but settled, it looks like the European Union is gearing up for a new antitrust probe, with its crosshairs aimed generally in Google's direction. According to the search giant's Senior Competition Counsel Julia Holtz (via its European Public Policy Blog), complaints from three European internet companies -- legal search group EJustice.fr, price comparison site Foundem.co.uk, and German-based Microsoft subsidiary Ciao.de -- have prompted the European Commission to launch a preliminary, fact-finding probe. The charges? Anticompetitive practices stemming from unfair downranking of its competitors in search results. Google denies any wrongdoing, while adding ,"we are also the first to admit that our search is not perfect, but it's a very hard computer science problem to crack." The Microsoft connection seems particularly notable to Google; Holtz reiterates that the company had a good relationship with Ciao until the Redmond company picked it up in 2008 -- "we started receiving complaints about our standard terms and conditions." Like we said, at this point it's just a fact-finding probe that could end up going nowhere, but seriously, Google's lawyerscannot seem to get a break these days.

 

I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google.

What goes around, comes around...

famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google.

This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations.

Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations.

Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it.

Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it.

Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells.

patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells.

Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

Kasz216 said: ... Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

Microsoft has a far longer list of crimes than that. Patent scares with Linux, paying OEMs not to ship other OSs, OEM lock-in by making it cheaper to sell Windows than no OS at all (yes that does make sense), Media Player bundling, limiting netbook form factor, the OOXML not being truly open thing, making a deliberately incompatible version of Java to weaken it, RROD and not doing enough to admit it and extend warranty permenently, refusing people Windows refunds even when the license called for it...

Not all of those are serious or indeed illegal but if we're going for corporate ethics then MS is the worst.

And you're assuming Google actually did those things. I doubt they did, and I doubt if they did that it was intentional. If I see some evidence I'll reconsider.

Soleron said: Kasz216 said: ... Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. Microsoft has a far longer list of crimes than that. Patent scares with Linux, paying OEMs not to ship other OSs, OEM lock-in by making it cheaper to sell Windows than no OS at all (yes that does make sense), Media Player bundling, limiting netbook form factor, the OOXML not being truly open thing, making a deliberately incompatible version of Java to weaken it, RROD and not doing enough to admit it and extend warranty permenently, refusing people Windows refunds even when the license called for it... Not all of those are serious or indeed illegal but if we're going for corporate ethics then MS is the worst. And you're assuming Google actually did those things. I doubt they did, and I doubt if they did that it was intentional. If I see some evidence I'll reconsider.

I'm talking simply about these two cases... which is what the thread was about.  Comparitivly the google one is MUCH more a problem.

Also, you doubt google actually did this?  Based on what?

Based on the fact that because they had a spat with Apple they decided to remove Ipad pictures for their search engine.

Google has shown the ability and willinginess to alter their search records for their own goals.

So there was a case because MS gave there IE for free? That is stupid. What about notepad? I can download a better one. What about apple and safari?