[londons_explore]

This is partly preying on the fact googles 'doodles' weaken their brand/trademark.

Back when every google doodle clearly had the word "Google" in, that was okay.

But often now, the doodles are just some random picture. At that point, there is no brand recognition to their homepage beyond a blank white background and centered search box, which microsoft has copied here because those elements alone are not enough to form a legally protectable brand.

[comex]

I agree, but for the record, if Google wanted to sue, they wouldn’t be completely out of luck. They could make claims under the Lanham Act §1125(a), state unfair competition laws, or other fraud-adjacent laws. But they would have to prove that Microsoft was deceiving customers, and it would be a lot harder without an actual case of trademark infringement.

They could also try to claim trademark infringement based on the fact that Microsoft is hijacking searches for the keyword “google”. Courts have previously rejected trademark claims when a company takes out search ads using its competitor’s name as a keyword, but Google could argue that what Microsoft is doing here is more deceptive than that.

(IANAL and have only passing familiarity, but I’m fairly confident in the above.)

[oehpr]

IANAL as well. but I have to say, if typing into typing Google into the Bing search and getting a page that looks almost exactly like Google can't be proven as intent to deceive, then the law is broken.

I can't imagine anything clearer to prove intent than a user requesting that they want to go to Google to Bing, Bing responds to that request by showing them a page that looks like Google's. That is so clear. Is that really not able to be proven in court?

[mrayycombi]

Microsoft has been breaking the law for years and was found guilty of antitrust violations, among others.

Bill Gates, the friendly philanthropist, was/is a business criminal. His company hasn't changed.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/microsoft-agrees-pay-20-milli...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....

They waged a war of "FUD" against open-source software.

https://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html

And so on.

And Google is hardly a saint either. "Do no evil" was just marketing from that surveillance advertising firm.

[philistine]

At this point the events you’re describing are decades ago. To me they are as relevant to the Google and Microsoft of today as saying that Apple is not to be trusted because they messed up the Performa line.

Not irrelevant, but those company are faceless, far bigger, far more insidious than when the events you describe happened.

[mrayycombi]

It's only past history if they stop doing it.

If you try to download and install chrome they do the same visual obfuscation, hide the button, and deceptilink you to use their browser.

Nothing has changed bro. Open your eyes. They never repented.

[pjmlp]

Indeed starting by FOSS folks talking about the man, while complaining that no one from big tech returns anything, even though they play by the rules of the licensing.

[philistine]

> faceless, far bigger, far more insidious

My point is not that they're better. It's that they're faceless now, they no longer have the personality you ascribe to them.

[tim333]

Technically "Microsoft to pay $20 million in civil penalties" doesn't actually make the CEO a criminal in the legal sense.

Not saying he's a saint who's never done anything wrong but who is?

[mrayycombi]

Wow, everyone breaks the law sometimes....

Gosh. I guess we're all robber barons at heart.

I guess when PG&E legally ignores requirements to trim electrical lines and people die, well the CEO didn't get any criminal charges, so the dead can be comforted that being burned alive wasn't done by a "criminal" quote un quote.

We all cause people to die by our greed... sometimes.

[Incipient]

The majority of big business is built on varying degrees of fraud, bribery, nepotism, anti-competitive behaviour, etc.

It's just how business is done. If you don't get a leg up on your competitors, they'll get one up on you.

[mrayycombi]

A sad excuse for criminal conduct. Believe it or not there are lots of law abiding businesses, and companies that compete on quality, service, and price.

And even if that were an extreme minority (and I don't think it is) we should praise them as models instead of resigning ourselves to mediocre businesses using illegal tactics to control a market for super profits.

[Incipient]

I never said it was good.

I'm pretty awful at business because I always fix my mistakes for free and don't hide them behind fake "scope change" arguments that so many other vendors do.

I'm just saying the reality of it.

Also I don't think nepotism/giving work to friends is actually criminal in a lot of cases?

[mrayycombi]

Nepotism is a kind of corruption. It might be quite legal in some cases - private parties I think.

In some cases not as much.

It represents the appearance or actuality of kick backs and favoritism for "other" non-business reasons.

Put your mistress on the payroll? Why not! Put your 'can't get a job' brother on the payroll? Why not?!

The "princeling" hire is a classic form of quid pro quo hire - you hire Bidens coke&hookers son, his dad says hi to you on the golf course.

Nothing to see here.

[tim333]

In some ways it weakens their brand in that maybe it's easier to pretend to be them but in others it makes people feel good about them. I like the doodles.