Fire Alarm Companies

the last round of Microsoft anti-trust, which dates back to some of their actions on Windows 95. To be clear, I think that the action against Microsoft is pretty ridiculous. It is quite clear that the market is able to respond to any perception of Microsoft "monopoly" and routing around them. However, one thing that is surprising in all this is pure hypocrisy of Microsoft in the discussion of this case in comparison to Microsoft's own efforts to drag Google in a battle for the defense of competition as well. Now, some will shrug and say this is the basis for the interest on the part of Microsoft. This will always give priority to things that help Microsoft. But it certainly seems to undermine the validity and credibility of Microsoft's arguments.

Back in March, said it was ridiculous when Google complained about Microsoft to the European Union, complaining that Google makes it difficult for Microsoft platforms (especially Bing mobile platform and Microsoft) to access video data from YouTube. At the time general counsel of Microsoft appeared to insist that Google had a

duty design their platform to make life easier for its competitors. This is the quote that was highlighted in March:

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube - and has since launched an increasing number of technical measures to limit the jurisdiction of many search engines to access the results of research.

Without adequate access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines can not be with Google on an equal footing to return search results with links to YouTube videos and, of course, drives more users of competitors and Google

Second, in 2010 and more recently, Google blocks of new Windows phones work properly with YouTube. Google has its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can browse video by category, find your favorites, notes view and so on in the rich user interfaces that offer the phones. Do the same for the iPhone that Apple offers, does not offer a competition between research services.

Notice how in the two paragraphs, Smith seems to suggest that Google has a clear duty to design their products to make life easier for competitors to Google. well. Now move on to the lawsuit pending against Microsoft for Novell. And notice how the advocates of Microsoft appears to argue directly against the idea that a company should be required to build their products to help competitors:

Steve Aeschbacher Microsoft lawyer said he wants Novell to Microsoft Windows 95 has developed differently than him.

The law essentially requires people to design their products to arbitrary or demand for other companies. You get to design their own products

. There is no legal requirement for us to do what they wanted us to do, "he said.
seems to directly contradict what Microsoft said a few months ago, when it comes to Google. In addition, the motion for summary judgment Microsoft (pdf) in the present case - a brief can be sure MS General Counsel Brad Smith was well aware of - Microsoft returns to claim the exact opposite of what he says about home Google a few months ago: based on the idea that Microsoft had a positive duty to aid or to continue to assist a / concurrent-

Find best price for : --YouTube----Google----Microsoft----Windows--