In response to a complaint by Google that Windows Vista violates the terms of Microsoft's U.S. antitrust settlement, Microsoft has agreed to make some changes to Vista's desktop search feature in Vista SP1, which is expected in 2008. In other legal news, the company claimed that its agreement with Novell does not bind it to the next version of the GNU General Public License (GPL) under which Linux is distributed and sued force-feedback technology company Immersion to enforce terms of a previous settlement.

Google Complaints

Microsoft is required to file regular status reports as part of its 2002 antitrust settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and several states. In a June 2007 status report, Microsoft revealed it will change Vista's desktop search feature in response to complaints from Google.

The final judgment in the U.S. antitrust case included some restrictions on adding new features to Windows. In particular, when Microsoft includes features that the consent decree defines as "middleware" (such as Web browsers and media players), it must take certain steps to ensure that end users and OEMs can easily use competing applications rather than using the Microsoft middleware by default.

Google, X1, and other companies have developed desktop search software to help users find items stored on their PCs, such as documents and e-mail messages, by searching within the full text of those items. Microsoft introduced its own full-text desktop search product, MSN Desktop Search (later changed to Windows Desktop Search) in 2004 to augment the fairly basic file search capabilities in Windows XP, and then incorporated this search technology into Vista.

In early 2007, Google complained that Vista's desktop search feature met the definition of middleware. Although the DoJ chose not to pursue this complaint, several plaintiff states publicly announced they might take action.

To stave off this legal action, Microsoft has agreed to do the following:

• Provide a mechanism by which end users and OEMs can choose another default desktop search product
• Ensure that whenever Windows launches a "top-level window" with desktop search results (such as when users conduct searches from Vista's Start menu), this window employs the user's chosen default desktop search product
• Update Vista so that search interfaces that do not automatically launch a new window, such as the search pane in Vista's Windows Explorer, contain a link that lets users launch a different default desktop search product and conduct the search from that product instead
• Provide desktop search ISVs with technical information so they can minimize their products' effects on performance.

Vista's desktop search feature is already designed to cede resources to other search products, and Vista can support multiple search products (including duplicate indices), so no further technical changes are being implemented.

The DoJ and states announced they were satisfied with these proposed changes, but Google expressed concern that the changes will not be sufficient to level the playing field—in particular, Google objected to the fact that Vista's desktop search will remain the default search engine in many parts of the Vista user interface. However, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is overseeing the case, said that she would only react to requests from the DoJ and state plaintiffs, who reiterated they were satisfied with Microsoft's proposed changes.

Microsoft Claims No Obligation Under GPL

In June, the Free Software Foundation introduced a new version of the GPL—the license under which Linux is distributed—with some new provisions about patents.

Among other changes, the third version of this license (GPLv3) aims to restrict the types of agreements that Linux distributor Novell signed with Microsoft in Nov. 2006. In that agreement, Microsoft agreed not to file patent-infringement lawsuits against any customer who purchased Novell's SUSE Linux distribution. (Microsoft has publicly asserted that Linux infringes upon more than 100 Microsoft patents, but has not named those patents nor filed any legal claims over the issue. It has since extended similar indemnification for customers of Linux distributions from Linspire and Xandros.)

Under the GPLv3, distributors may not enter business arrangements with third parties if those arrangements include "discriminatory" patent protection (i.e., patent protection only for customers of that particular distributor). In addition, because Microsoft is redistributing certificates for SUSE Linux as part of the Novell deal, some have argued that this makes Microsoft a direct party to the GPL.

Linux is not yet covered by the GPLv3, and the license is retroactive only to Mar. 28, 2007, meaning that the Microsoft-Novell deal might never be covered under it. Nonetheless, shortly after the GPLv3 was released, Microsoft released its own statement saying that its deal with Novell did not constitute acceptance of any version of the GPL, and specifically excluded software covered by the GPLv3 from the Novell agreement.

It's not clear whether either the GPLv3 or Microsoft's assertion is valid or binding. Nonetheless, if Microsoft does decide to sue some Linux customers over patent infringement—an unlikely event, given that it would carry huge risks to Microsoft—this new iteration of the GPL could help the defendants build a case against Microsoft.

For background on the Novell-Microsoft deal, see "Broad Agreement Signed with Novell" on page 33 of the Dec. 2006 Update.

For more discussion of Microsoft, Linux, and indemnification, see "Linux Agreements Signed" on page 29 of the July 2007 Update.

The full text of the GPLv3 is at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Immersion Dispute Reopened

In June, Microsoft sued Immersion, a company that holds numerous patents on force-feedback technology, which causes game controllers to move in reaction to action happening in a game (e.g., explosions, driving on a rough surface).

The suit refers to a previous patent dispute between the companies, which Microsoft settled by paying Immersion US$26 million in 2002. In that settlement, Microsoft negotiated a future payment from Immersion in the event that Immersion reached a similar patent-infringement settlement with Sony; the amount would be dependent on the amount of the Sony-Immersion settlement. In May, Sony and Immersion entered a business agreement that ended their lawsuit. Microsoft claims this arrangement qualifies as a settlement and is seeking at least US$27.5 million from Immersion, which has denied the claim.