Unfair Says Microsoft's CEO

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said Monday that unfair tactics used by Google led to its dominance as a search engine, tactics that in turn have thwarted his company's rival program, Bing.

Nadella testified in packed Washington, D.C., courtroom as part of the government's landmark antitrust trial against Google's parent company, Alphabet. The Justice Department alleges Google has abused the dominance of its ubiquitous search engine to throttle competition and innovation at the expense of consumers, allegations that echo a similar case brought against Microsoft in the late 1990s.

Nadella said Google's dominance was due to agreements that made it the default browser on smartphones and computers. He downplayed the idea that artificial intelligence or more niche search engines like Amazon or social media sites have meaningfully changed the market in which Microsoft competes with Google.

It's a bummer when the tables are turned.

Top | New | Old

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

Neither one have been doing "fair" business practices since Google started.

How many remember a certain site called dejanews.com?

The whole domain name belongs to Google. The old dejanews was forced to change it's name because they themselves were a search engine bought out buy google!

Notice this is a 404 message. Meaning there is no index file! The domain belongs to Google even to this day from the 1990s!

ElwoodBlues · M

For those who don't recall, in the late 1990s Microsoft was sued by the Dept of Justice for tying its 'Internet Explorer' browser to its operating system.

The Federal Trade Commission began an inquiry in 1990 over whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly in the PC operating system market ... resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994, in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (IE) was not a product but a feature that it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition.

After a 2nd trial,

Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, holding that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including applications from Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. On April 3, 2000, Jackson issued his conclusions of law, holding that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2]

On June 7, 2000, the District Court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its remedy.[18] According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be split into two separate units, one to produce the operating system and one to produce other software components.[19][20] Microsoft immediately appealed the judgment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.[19]

After the appeal of the breakup

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins.[27] The case was remanded back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on this matter, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding.[28]

Microsoft's final settlement

Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions were resolved through a Consent Decree that took effect in 2001 and a Final Judgment entered in 2002. These proceedings imposed various constraints on our Windows operating system businesses. These constraints include limits on certain contracting practices, mandated disclosure of certain software program interfaces and protocols, and rights for computer manufacturers to limit the visibility of certain Windows features in new PCs. We believe we are in full compliance with these rules. However, if we fail to comply with them, additional restrictions could be imposed on us that would adversely affect our business.[31]

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

American business use "unfair" tactics??? I cant believe that...😷

LordShadowfire · 46-50, MVIP

God, you live long enough, and you realize the whole thing is just a cycle. The old evil corporation is thwarted by the new upstart corporation, which gets bigger and bigger until it becomes the new old evil corporation.

Renaci · 36-40

Or maybe Google gives me what I search for. Warts and all. Bing tells me what it wants me to look up.

But I have noticed there are about four big algorithms behind search engines. There are the Google types which Google seems to hold a monopoly over.
Then the bing types that most all over English search engines use. Like dogpile and duckduckgo and yahoo.

You put in the same term in all of those second ones, you tend to get very similar if not identical results. Google has completely different results using the same search terms.

And then there is Yandax which gives different results than the Google and Bing types both.

There is also Asian market ones like Baidu. But I don't speak it so I can't navigate it well. Lol I just know the results are different than the other three search pools.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Renaci

Or maybe Google gives me what I search for. Warts and all.

Google's search engine has not worked as documented for years, now. It includes all sorts of non-germane crap, even things you try to exclude.

Then the bing types that most all over English search engines use. Like dogpile and duckduckgo and yahoo.

No.

The Duckduckgo docs say that the they use the Google search (but making it private), and it typically returns a large set, not just a single favored link.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...