EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.06.10

Microsoft Hypocrisy: Google Accuses Microsoft of Giving Google Legal Trouble Over Search Impartiality and Privacy

Posted in FUD, Google, Marketing, Microsoft, Search at 2:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“But rather than a search engine or even a “decision engine”, Bing also appears to be a spin engine, in that it provides partisan answers to controversial topics, such as Steve Ballmer’s propensity to throw chairs to blow off stress.”

Christian Einfeldt

Summary: ‘Consumer’ ‘Watchdog’ (AstroTurfing) and action from Texas Attorney General is linked to Microsoft, which is trying to fight against Google in nefarious new ways

GOOGLE is under fire right now. Does Google deserve scrutiny? Sure. But to what extent is this overplayed by Google’s competitors, notably Microsoft?

Well, Microsoft is trying to characterise Google as the “evil empire” because no other tactic has worked for Microsoft against Google, which not only succeeds in search but also threatens Windows and Office (with Linux and Apps/SaaS, respectively).

The news about Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is not so new anymore. There’s no news to “break” here, but an analysis will hopefully prove useful. We will try to put things within context. There are already many discussions about it and a lot of articles too, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4].

First of all, Microsoft Florian takes Microsoft’s side in this matter which has nothing to do with patents. For those who don’t know, Microsoft Florian basically resorted to just attacking any large competitor of Microsoft. It’s not about “FOSS patents” and all that malarkey. A short while ago this Microsoft campaigner/booster wrote: “It’s weak that #Google just blames the Texas antitrust investigation on #Microsoft – that’s #IBM style diversion, not a substantive defense.”

“Microsoft Florian has in general joined the other Microsoft AstroTurfers…”It is worth noting that Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza has sort of joined forces with Florian and that small clique. They are trolling the FFII right now (that’s right, they do! They are making fun of the FFII and suggesting conflicts of interests, just as Dan Lyons did to Groklaw without any basis). Microsoft proponents think alike. Microsoft Florian has in general joined the other Microsoft AstroTurfers (out in the open even!) and right now he trolls the FFII, Groklaw (yesterday he wrote “Groklie” again), the FSF, the OIN, and just about any group whose interests are opposite to Microsoft’s, including Techrights. Be aware of so-called, self-appointed “watchdogs”, who happen to include Microsoft Florian. Those so-called ‘watchdogs’ give Google more bad publicity, which is not entirely unprecedented. It’s an amazing case of lobbying and grouping of Microsoft allies. Google was recently attacked by proxy in the EU. That’s one where Microsoft even admitted its role as satellites’ centre of gravity/master, using its partners to file antitrust complaints against Google.

The latest case from Texas has been analysed reasonably well by the press this time. Journalists at least bothered to mention Microsoft’s hand, crediting the accusations to Google:

“We recognize that as Google grows, we’re going to face more questions about how our business works,” Deputy General Counsel Don Harrison said in a blog post.

Google pointed out in its statement that attorneys who also work with Microsoft Corp represent two of the companies.

Well, the one manipulating search results is Microsoft (last covered in the previous post), so they should go after Microsoft. Privacy issues apply equally well to Microsoft and we explained this point many times before. Microsoft also spies at operating systems/applications level.

Microsoft denies its role to the press, but it cannot quite deny evidence. It’s rather revealing:

In a related Web site posting, Microsoft said Friday that it was not involved in a campaign to attack Google in the courtroom, but that it was a member of Competitive Online Marketplace, an organization that includes Foundem.

Microsoft also said attorneys who have worked with the company have also represented myTriggers and TradeComet.

More here:

The cases cover those brought by shopping comparison Websites Foundem and myTriggers, and search directory SourceTools, all three of whom have ties to Microsoft.

Here is a full, direct quote:

Google’s suggest Microsoft’s involvement

The most interesting part in this whole story is the fact that Google said the party’s involved are all financially backed by Microsoft suggesting that the Software maker is somehow behind the whole thing. Amir Efrati of the WSJ:

“Google said Foundem is backed by ICOMP, an organization funded largely by Microsoft and added that TradeComet and myTriggers are represented by the same antitrust attorneys Microsoft uses.

Microsoft did admit to helping small company’s that felt Google unfairly targeted them by suggesting they file a complaint to antitrust authorities or by pointing them in the right direction, but said that’s as far as it went the company denied any direct involvement. All company’s involved denied any Microsoft connection.

It’s just like TurboHercules and T3, isn’t it?

Groklaw has the best analysis we’ve found so far and it obviates the need to make another. It’s a very detailed breakdown of the situation, including the many players at hand. From the opening (more here):

I guess you heard that the Texas attorney general has opened an investigation into antitrust complaints against Google, complaints lodged by Foundem, SourceTool, and myTriggers.com. Them again? Their complaints are not new. Here’s Google’s blog post about it.

And likely you heard about that utterly tasteless ad in Times Square from Consumer Watchdog, a cartoon of a creepy looking Eric Schmidt handing ice cream to children and asking for their secrets.

I think I can explain both events, because they are part of one campaign. Or as American Lawyer describes [PDF] the lawyers behind this, they are on a crusade against Google. The article is titled “The Google-Slayers”. Guess who the lawyers on this crusade have as a client? Microsoft. They handle Microsoft’s antitrust work. Guess who sent the first complainant to these lawyers, which led to this crusade? Microsoft. The jumping off point.

So. A crusade to destroy Google. By folks who count Microsoft as an important client, with new clients, at least one of them directly referred to the “crusaders” by Microsoft and the rest now under their umbrella. My stars, gentlemen. Where is your subtlety?

As we’ve shown before, ‘Consumer’ ‘Watchdog’ is an AstroTurfing group, probably paid for by Microsoft. “Wired did a write up of the weekly “screw Google” meetings a year or two ago,” said to us a reader yesterday. “These new lawsuits are the fruit of those efforts.”

Interestingly enough, ThistleWeb pointed out that the MSBBC keeps acting as a cogwheel, thanks to Microsoft sympathiser Maggie Shiels. “I’d love to say it was nice to see a journo investigate the funding behind a group,” he explained, “but I don’t expect much of the #BBC” (the BBC gives a platform to the AstroTurfing group which ushers or supports the lawsuits, putting public opinion/consent behind them).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. saulgoode said,

    September 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Gravatar

    It’s just like TurboHercules and T3, isn’t it?

    There is a distinction in that IBM openly admits to engaging in exclusionary licensing deals with their customers. The question that the EU courts are being asked to address is whether IBM’s licensing practices constitute violation of the European Union’s anti-competition rules.

    From a “tech rights” perspective the distinction is significant. Free software advocates have a vested interest in the laws which affect software freedom — not so much in whether a particular corporation chooses to engage in activities which violate those laws.

    Furthermore, the allegations being levied against Google have nothing to do with software freedom, whereas the IBM investigation does concern the software freedoms of their customers; though to IBM’s credit they seemingly do not rely upon copyright legislation, or even patent law (yet), in attempting to limit their customers’ freedoms.

    twitter Reply:

    The similarity is hypocrisy and waste of judicial resources. Microsoft, the chief violator of software freedom, is harassing their competitors with lawsuits through proxies. This ties up the courts with relative trivialites and wastes everyone’s time and money, especially IBM and Google’s who are mostly proponents of software freedom now. A victory by TH would give us the “freedom” to run some of IBM’s non free software on Windows. A victory by any of these jerks in Texas would do even less good. Reasonable anti-trust cases should address Microsoft’s clearly anti-competitive manipulation of OEMs that force us all to pay for Windows when we buy a new computer, regardless of what OS we want to use. There’s enough evidence in Comes vrs Microsoft to win such a case and there’s more than enough smoke regarding netbooks to warrant extensive discovery.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts