Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Jul 2009 12:18 UTC, submitted by REM2000
Internet & Networking The rumours and back-and-forths have been going on for as long as I can remember, but today, the deal was finally announced: Microsoft and Yahoo! have tied the knot - but only strictly related to internet search and advertising. The move is supposed to help both Yahoo! and Microsoft in their competition with Google.
Thread beginning with comment 375986
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Double standard
by rajan r on Wed 29th Jul 2009 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Double standard "
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

In what world is Microsoft a monopolist in the search and online advertising market?

Prevention of a monopolist is why Google (the overwhelmingly dominant market leader) isn't allowed to make such deals.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Double standard
by Moulinneuf on Wed 29th Jul 2009 17:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Double standard "
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

In this one , Microsoft is a criminal corporation found guitly of crime and of being a monopoly.

If you prevent the creation of a monopoly , you don't let a guilty one do what you prevented from a lawful company who aint one yet and probably never will be.

Majority Marketshare don't create monopoly or antitrust. It's when your the only one able to survive or you do it criminally that there is a problem.

Microsoft as been #1 illegally on the desktop for decades , killing and illegaly preventing competition.

Google as only recently taken over the majority marketshare in Search engine. They don't kill other Search engine and they don't prevent any other from creation and competiting.

Reply Parent Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

So how are they a "criminal organization"?
Losing a civil antitrust suit or being declared guilty of violating civil antitrust law by the EC doesn't equate to criminality any more than getting a speeding ticket does. Not all violations of law are "criminal", in fact, most aren't.

LOTS of companies have lossed civil suits and one time or another in their history. Are they all "criminal organizations" according to you?

Here are some difference between criminal and civil law:
In order to be found guilty of a crime (i.e. criminal law), one must be found guilty by a unanimous jury of 12 jurors (in the US, at least), beyond a reasonable doubt. And in a criminal trial, the accuse is not required to take the stand (in the US, at least).

On the other hand, in order to be found liable of violating civil law, a single judge or a jury panel (which can have fewer than 12 members (as little as 5), and many times doesn't have to be unanimous) must find the accused liable according to the "preponderence of evidence" (which means 50% of the evidence plus 1, and is a much lower burden of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for criminal conviction). And (in the US) the accused cannot refuse to take the stand in a civil trial, unlike with criminal trials.

Lastly, in the EU, the EC can declare a party guilty of violating civil antitrust law without even going through a trial at all. The EU does not allow that for criminal law.

The difference between civil and criminal law actually matters. If the MS/DOJ case had actually been a criminal matter, then the DOJ would have had to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" according to a unanimous 12-member jury, and Microsoft officials wouldn't have been compelled to testify (the defense could call them to voluntarily testify, of course). Looking at the evidence of the MS/DOJ trial, there's no way in hell that the DOJ would have met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden, so Microsoft would have walked away scott-free.

But since it was a civil trial, the DOJ only had to prove its case to a single judge (a moron, at that) according to "preponderance of evidence" (50%+1 of the evidence).

So the difference between civil and criminal law actually matters. You have a history of ignoring the differences and have played fast and loose with the term "criminal organization" (and the like). You've been told the difference before, but you continue to spout your false talking points. You are either ignorant and refuse to learn, or you know better and are simply lying.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Double standard
by CrazyDude1 on Wed 29th Jul 2009 18:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Double standard "
CrazyDude1 Member since:
2007-09-17

I totally agree with you on that. Microsoft is a very small player in the search and online advertising. By combining hands with Yahoo, they have a good chance of taking a shot at google. Which IMHO is a good thing, since google's dominance on the search is/was disturbing.

As an example, a local yoga center here got a wrong phone number listed on google. Whenever I called them, the number did not go through and I thought they have closed their location. They don't have a website. However I was able to find correct number on bing. When I told them about google, they were like yeah we have been asking google to fix it for over a month! This is what can happen, if there is only 1 player in the market.

You see the picture?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Double standard
by TechGeek on Wed 29th Jul 2009 18:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Double standard "
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While I am the first one in line advocating competition, do you REALLY want Microsoft to take Google's place? Do we really want Microsoft to be #1 in ANOTHER market, considering their past behavior?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Double standard
by lemur2 on Thu 30th Jul 2009 01:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Double standard "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In what world is Microsoft a monopolist in the search and online advertising market? Prevention of a monopolist is why Google (the overwhelmingly dominant market leader) isn't allowed to make such deals.


Why is it then that Microsoft is allowed to make deals with the likes of ASUS so that ASUS pulls products from trade shows ...

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/81000...

Asus debuted its new Snapdragon device running Android. After the first day they pulled the display and apologized during a press conference with Microsoft. Sounds like a monopoly violation to me.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/06/12/ms-steps-snapdragon/

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4311#more-4311

If Microsoft Windows is such a superior product, why do they stoop to actions like this to prevent competition? BTW, the groklaw article links to a bunch of videos that people took before the display was pulled. Notice the devices have hardware accelerated video decoding. Yeah, I can see why no one would want one of those....


and then creates websites such as "works better with Windows".

http://www.itsbetterwithwindows.com/

Better than what? I can't see how a device with a Snapdragon CPU works better with Windows when Windows isn't available at all for it.

Why is ASUS advertising Windows? Why has ASUS withdrawn any choice of OS to its customers? Why would ASUS bring the best new product to Computex for display, show it working well, start a great buzz around the product ... then withdraw it all of a sudden the very next day?

Edited 2009-07-30 01:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Double standard
by lemur2 on Thu 30th Jul 2009 03:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Double standard "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In what world is Microsoft a monopolist in the search and online advertising market? Prevention of a monopolist is why Google (the overwhelmingly dominant market leader) isn't allowed to make such deals.


Neither is Microsoft:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090729-716340.html

Reply Parent Score: 2