Google does evil
Contrary to its "do no evil" pledge, Google has used evil federal anti-trust law as leverage to force Microsoft to change Windows Vista to permit consumers to choose which desktop search program will be used. Shame on Google. On the other hand, Microsoft does not have clean hands--it's attempting to use antitrust law to block Google's acquisition of Double-Click.
Sometimes I wonder--what's worse for the economy--patents, or antitrust law. But they are not all that different, are they: the agency that monopolizes the right to decide when force may be used gives companies the right to sue other companies for being too monopolistic--that is, A can sue B for competing too vigorously and successfully in the market; and with patents, the monopoly-state grants little monopolies to companies to give them the right to sue other companies for competing with them. The feds sure hate competition, don't they?--in both senses. They don't want anyone horning in on their racket; and they also don't like the market competition of enterprises. And yet the result of anti-trust and patent law is endless money-wasting, lawyer-hiring legal bickering... "legal" competition that wastes resources and costs billions of dollars, a type of lose-lose competition that generates nothing but loss, unlike the real competition of the market which leads to gains for all.
Comments (13)
Aaron Funk
I disagree... As an IT Professional, I have been frustrated for years with Microsoft's desire to tie the consumer's hands with things like this. It is NOT "evil" to use legal knowledge to give the public the power of CHOICE on their own operating system. It IS "evil" of Microsoft to prevent you at a core operating system level from using only its services. THAT'S non-competitive, which Microsoft continues to be in every way it legally can. THey should, it's in their best interest to promote their own services. But to say that Google is suddenly "evil" because they fight to extend the functionality of the operating system - not JUST for Google but for ALL search providers - is fallacious at best. If you'd said that Google had used the long arm of the law to exclusively gain search rights to Vista and NO other search provider - including Microsoft - was allowed to participate or benefit, then I would agree with you. But this is not the case, Google, once again is using its clout to break down the confining walls established with nearly every new version of every single Microsoft product on the market.
Published: June 21, 2007 8:18 AM
Brent
That is bogus logic, Aaron. Your IT'ness blinds you.
Published: June 21, 2007 8:39 AM
Gabriel
Aaron, I'm an IT guy too.
The premise underlying the idea that Google did evil is as follows: initiating (or threating) physical force against someone else is evil. Google, with the help of the FTC, is forcing MS to do something that MS would not do if not for that threat of physical force. Given the premise, then, yes, Google's action is evil. If you want to say that what Google did is not evil, then you must dispute the premise.
I think you meant to say third-party services instead of only its services. Nonetheless, the implications of your idea are somewhat staggering. Is it evil that MS does not provide any way to use the third-party Linux kernel instead of its own NT kernel? That is certainly non-competitive. Using your reasoning, it would be a good thing if the FTC forced MS to allow third-party kernels to be used in their OS. Nevermind the (no doubt staggering) costs of doing so.
Using an extreme example like this, we can see that the idea is not very good. The underlying premise is wrong. The premise is that anything that promotes greater competition should be pursued. This is not true. Competition, like everything else, is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Beyond a certain point, more competition is not better. The question must always be: what benefit will the additional competition provide us with versus what are the costs of this additional competition and the costs of imposing the additional competition.
Published: June 21, 2007 10:39 AM
betaray
Except when you are forcing someone to not be evil, unless your position is that we should live without rules in an anarchy.
You are close to understanding the issue here, but you miss the point. The Linux kernel competes directly with the kernels of MS operating systems, and you are right we should not force MS to distribute the Linux kernel just because their kernel has been successful. However, here Microsoft is using the success of their kernel to lock people into using their other products. This is called a vertical monopoly, and it unfairly limits trade.
Imagine if the auto manufacturers made it extremely difficult to fill up anywhere but the auto manufacturer's own stations, not because of any technical limitation, but simlpy because it would be more profitable for them if you filled up in the auto manufacturer's own gas stations. Are you fine with the requirement that you be must manufacture cars to be able to sell gasoline? I'm not. I'm glad that we have fuel and pump standards set by the DOT that means that anyone who is capable of producing gasoline that meets our standards can compete in the automobile gasoline market based on the merits of their product and not exclusively on their relationship with an auto manufacturer. To be clear, I don't care if the auto manufacturers found a profitable way to offer you incentives to buy gasoline from a particular vendor, as long as they don't arbitrarily limit the consumer's choices.
Now to bring this back to Google and Microsoft, I feel the same way in this situation. I think that anyone who creates an indexing mechanism should be able to compete in the Windows indexing application market on the merits of their indexer, not exclusively on their relationship with an OS manufacturer. Just because Microsoft created the OS they should not be able to build in ways to hurt others that would compete with them in the application market. Especially when all that's required is that the MS give you the ability to turn off the indexer they are promoting. MS still retains the advantage that they can bundle their indexer with Vista, but there's no reason other than sheer anti-competiveness to force your users to run their indexer.
Published: June 21, 2007 12:46 PM
betaray
One other thing, in markets where we don't have this kind of intervention the consumers generally gets screwed. How else would ink jet print ink become one of the most expensive liquids in the world?
Published: June 21, 2007 12:58 PM
Dan D.
How about simply not buying Windows Vista?
Published: June 21, 2007 1:34 PM
PR
Um, patents?
Published: June 21, 2007 1:38 PM
Kevin B.
betaray: "Just because Microsoft created the OS they should not be able to build in ways to hurt others that would compete with them in the application market."
Oh, where to begin!
Published: June 21, 2007 3:06 PM
Gabriel
I said that the initiation of physical force is wrong. The key word here is initiation; the mere use of force is not necessarily wrong. If someone initiates physical force against you or your property, e.g. by breaking a contract, then if you (or the government acting on your behalf) force them to abide by their agreement you have not done anything wrong. My position certainly does not require that we live in a world without rules; certain rules are essential.
Further, your statement begs the question. We are discussing what constitutes an evil action. You indicate that what Google did is not evil because they were fighting Microsoft's prior evil action. This, of course, assumes that Microsoft's prior action was evil--and we cannot determine this until we have established what constitutes an evil action. You assume the very thing we are debating.
When we say a product "competes directly" with another product, we mean that both products attempt to provide the same general service. Thus, two fast-food restaurants compete directly because they both attempt to provide "fast food." However, a fast-food restaurant and a grocery store or a video arcade do not complete directly (although they may well compete indirectly in the general sense that they compete for consumers' money).
Linux is a kernel--not a complete operating system. Linux competes directly with other kernels. Windows is an operating system, and it competes directly with other operating systems.
Windows competes directly with the Red Hat operating system, with the Ubuntu operating system, and even with the OpenBSD operating system; but it does not compete directly with the Linux kernel because complete operating systems and kernels attempt to provide two different services.
We can also say that Microsoft is using the success of their operating system to lock people into using their kernel. You may argue that kernels are part of an operating system. That is correct. But then again, hard drive search features (which are what Google is complaining about) are also part of every operating system that supports hard drives.
You state that this "unfairly" restricts trade. Trade is necessarily restricted to some degree by our lack of infinite resources. How do we determine if a certain specific instance of trade restriction is "fair" or not? "Unfair" is usually used in the same sense as "evil" when speaking in this context. Thus, we go back to our original discussion: how do we determine what is evil? The usual libertarian response is that the initiation (or threat of) physical force is what is evil/wrong/unfair. Do you disagree?
To here you speak, I would believe that businesses have no incentives to work together and come up with standards on their own but always need a third-party (i.e. the government) to impose standards on them. However, history has proven that businesses can in fact work together to promote standards. For example, most of the people reading this now are very likely using (a descendent of) an IBM compatible PC. What created the IBM compatible PC? Government edict? No, it was competition among businesses that did it.
My point is not that governments have been unsuccessful in enforcing certain standards. For better or for worse, many of our current standards have come from the government. My point is that businesses can come up with standards without anyone forcing them to do so.
The ZDNet article states that Windows' indexer must "cede precedence over computing resources to any other software product, including third-party desktop search products and their respective search indices" and that Microsoft will "be required to provide the technical details to enable rivals to write programs that minimize the performance impact of Vista's own search index."
Published: June 21, 2007 6:08 PM
Gabriel
Ink jet ink is not one of the most expensive liquids in the world. The list you provide gives the cost of the ink plus the cartridge. It is the cartridge that costs so much, not the ink.
Why are the cartridges so expensive then? Don't blame the "free market." Blame things like this.
In other words, business and government don't mix well. The government has the power to initiate physical force against almost anyone; and, if businesses are given the right to weld that power, they usually use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others. That's what worries me about cases like the current Google/Microsoft case. I wish that the FTC did not have the power to force businesses to do their bidding. As the old saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."
Published: June 21, 2007 6:28 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
"One other thing, in markets where we don't have this kind of intervention the consumers generally gets screwed. How else would ink jet print ink become one of the most expensive liquids in the world?"
Printer ink is the most expensive liquid in the world because of government intervention.
Those silly little cartridges are patent protected.
If you truly care about competition, remove patents.
Published: June 21, 2007 6:30 PM
Björn Lundahl
SVT1.Rapport.-.US.threatens.Sweden.with.trade.sanctions.Cust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6DBn0BncMk
Björn Lundahl
Published: June 24, 2007 3:19 AM
Paul Marks
"Anti trust" is a lot of nonsense (perhaps someone ought to put in a link to the "Case against antitrust" I am too dumb to know how.
If I sell a good or service you can buy it (the way I make it) or do without.
"But I want you to make your computer program [or car or book or whatever] in such a way that I can use it with this other stuff - not just with your stuff".
That is like asking Merc to make cars that can use parts from Ford or G.M.
If you want to convince Microsoft to make a system which you can use with the Google stuff then pay them lots of money and they may do so.
Do not get the government to threaten them.
"But it is irritating and costly to me for Microsoft not to act in the way I want it to" - so what?
By they way even I (a non computer person) know there are system out there that have nothing do with Microsoft.
If people really hate Microsoft they can use that Finnish stuff (or whatever), if they are willing to take the trouble. And it should not be a legal obligation for Microsoft to make anyone's life less difficult.
In short Stephen K. is right.
By the way what is this shock about Google being evil - after all they have been working with the government of the People's Republic of China for some time now.
Any company that has smug signs up its offices about "do not be evil" sounds like a bunch of (uncivil word) to me.
On "antitrust".
If a group of companies want to get together and say "we are all charging X" - that is up to them.
And if one company want to charge "below cost" that is up to it.
And if one company does not charge "below cost" and still manages to bankrupt all its rivals and is (horror of horrors) the only producer of its good or service in the market - that is also no business of the government.
Not only would new companies grow up (if the big boy started charging much high prices) but other big companies would diversfy from their field into this market (if the wicked "monopoly" started to charge much higher prices for its stuff).
What the "anti trust" - "competition policy" stuff does is give a political stick to some companies to beat other companies over the head with (rather than competing on price and quality).
By the way when are the "anti trust" regulations going to be applied to the labor unions (as the politicians who voted for the thing back in 1890 were told it would be)?
I do not believe in antitrust regulations, but if it is wrong to have one auto company it is wrong to have one auto union. Perhaps there should be lots of different ones, as with the absurd "perfect competition" conception of some forms of neoclassical economics.
Of course the counter attack on Microsoft (and other such) is (as Stephen K. knows) an attack on patents and copyrights - which libertarians are split on.
For myself, I have long wondered "if these ideas are property how come the patent or copyright only lasts for a certain number of years", either they are property (in which case there should be no limit in years), or they are not property - in which case......
Still there may well be a counter argument. In any case if there were no such things as patents and copyrights companies would find ways to keep their ways of doing things secret.
Certainly if we are to end patents in meds we must get rid of the F.D.A. (with the vast cost it imposes) - but then I doubt anyone around here would support the continued existance of the F.D.A.
Published: June 24, 2007 7:01 PM