| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft CEO: 'I'm going to f---ing kill Google' | |
|
||
| Time: 19:34 EST/00:34 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Thanks, tgbn | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:00:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (68.52.61.116) at 9/4/2005 1:54:29 AM |
| i absolutely love a good fight. Can't wait to see this whole google/microsoft fight continue for a couple of years. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.206.251.56) at 9/4/2005 7:23:09 AM |
|
Sounds like Mr Lee is quite a valuable asset!
And Mr Ballmer needs to get some help for that little temper! Let him try to "kill" Google legitimately rather than through non-compete agreements and the courts. Perhaps they can tweak IE to not work quite right with Google software in hope that will help. |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/4/2005 1:59:54 PM |
|
perhaps mr balmer is taking a page out of the pat robertson playbook.
i agree with #1. i love a good fight. the evil ms empire vs. the plucky google federation. what fun! mr balmer, please keep up the rhetoric. now that mcneely has been muzzled by selling out to ms there’s less fun following this crap. |
| #4 By 32132 (207.81.85.238) at 9/4/2005 2:37:23 PM |
|
Google , worlds largest stealer of IP, and worlds largest pornographer, should be "killed".
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1759871,00.html "The publisher of a US men's magazine has sued Google, alleging that the internet search giant is infringing on copyright by displaying thousands of pictures of nude women. Perfect 10 magazine said in a statement on Wednesday that it was seeking a preliminary injunction against the search engine "to enjoin Google from copying, displaying and distributing Perfect 10 copyrighted images". The magazine said it had already filed a complaint against Google in November 2004 claiming the web giant "is displaying hundreds of thousands of adult images, from the most tame to the most exceedingly explicit, to draw massive traffic to its website, which it is converting into hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising revenue". Much of Google's revenues come from so-called keyword searches that link advertisers to users by their search criteria. Perfect 10 claims that "under the guise of being a 'search engine,' Google is displaying, free of charge, thousands of copies of the best images from Perfect 10, Playboy, nude scenes from major movies, nude images of supermodels, as well as extremely explicit images of all kinds." " This post was edited by NotParker on Sunday, September 04, 2005 at 14:38. |
| #5 By 665 (198.51.49.2) at 9/4/2005 2:56:02 PM |
|
Umm... Parker, in your rush to attack Google, you do realize that Amazon was also named in that complaint, right? And, Norm Zada, publisher of Perfect 10, said he'd like to sue Yahoo and MSN.
"He added that Yahoo and MSN search engines also do the same but due to lack of resources he is unable to bring legal action against them and the Web sites that copy Perfect 10 images. 'We don't have the resources to sue everybody,' said the publisher." http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/3901.html If you're going to get on Google for something, try privacy. But your arguement there is stupid because Google isn't doing anything all the other search engines are doing. |
| #6 By 61 (65.32.175.192) at 9/4/2005 4:46:27 PM |
|
Chris: Non-compete agreements are very important, and very legit.
Now, it seems, Google can't compete without stealing Microsoft employees/talent, and you call this legit? People are always quick to bash Microsoft no matter what, especially when it involves 'innocent' ole Google. |
| #7 By 32132 (207.81.85.238) at 9/4/2005 9:16:30 PM |
|
"But your arguement there is stupid because Google isn't doing anything all the other search engines are doing."
Stealing IP is ok if search engines do it? Weird argument. I'm not excusing Amazon or MSN or Yahoo. I think its a shame those companies go around stealing peoples IP without compensation. I just happen to think Google is the biggest thief. Not the only one. |
| #8 By 665 (198.51.49.2) at 9/4/2005 10:35:24 PM |
| So you think image search in general is stealing IP? You think a search engine indexing any copyrighted materials and allowing it to be searched is stealing IP? Even if that were true, Google wouldn't be the worst - only the biggest. |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/4/2005 11:17:29 PM |
|
#5 "in your rush to attack Google"
Parkkker's logic works like this: <non-Microsoft> bad, Microsoft good! "If you're going to get on Google for something, try privacy." Not sure what privacy you are talking about given that Perfect 10 etc didn't take appropriate measures to protect their privacy to begin with. Google specify exactly how to stop them from caching any parts of your site that you don't want accessed - http://www.google.com/webmasters/bot.html. The information has been available there for a long time now, you cannot claim ignorance (well Parkkker can, but he's a special case). Note that none of this states that a good lawyer cannot get Google on privacy but that's an entirely different matter - a good lawyer can get you off on murder. #6 "Non-compete agreements are very important" I agree with you from the company's point of view, but I disagree from the employees point of view. Why should a company be able to control what you do once you have stopped working for them? How does it benefit you as an employee? Sure you can choose to not sign it and hence find a job somewhere else - but that's less of an option these days when nearly everyone has one! "Now, it seems, Google can't compete without stealing Microsoft employees/talent, and you call this legit?" The stole him? How did they "steal" him? Offering a man a better offer is "stealing"? What's illegal about taking other companies employees??!?! If that's illegal then Microsoft should be locked up for the rest of eternity along with every other company! Did you think about what you were writing there? Or is that a rhetorical question! If Google makes Mr Lee a better offer then that's good for Google and Mr Lee and bad for Microsoft - that's capitalism! Perhaps Microsoft should have done more to keep Mr Lee if he is so valuable to the company - maybe, just maybe, he wasn't as valuable as an employee as he is a pawn to try to "f---ing kill" Google. "People are always quick to bash Microsoft no matter what" And others are even quicker to stick up for Microsoft no matter what! |
| #10 By 32132 (207.81.85.238) at 9/4/2005 11:28:33 PM |
|
#8 "So you think image search in general is stealing IP?"
If Google just linked to the image, it would be ok. They actually display the image and allow you to view it and download it. That is theft. I hope they get nailed for it. #9 "Google specify exactly how to stop them from caching any parts of your site" Caching = Stealing. It means you take a copyrighted image, copy it from a website, and host it on your website, and then sell ads based on the views the image draws without paying any royalties. I don't expect people who have no respect for IP to care. I don't expect Google to care as long as it makes them money. This post was edited by NotParker on Sunday, September 04, 2005 at 23:31. |
| #11 By 665 (198.51.49.2) at 9/5/2005 12:46:38 AM |
|
chris - I didn't mean privacy in terms of the Perfect 10 case. A lot of people get on Google because they log all searches + IPs, they scan email... etc. etc. I don't really care but that's the best (rational) arguement I hear against them.
Parker - sigh, I don't know where to start. Do you understand the point of an image search? I type something in, I get a bunch of thumbnails, I find the image I want, I click on the image to get the full image, plus all the content from the page. If you take away the thumbnails, it makes it a lot more difficult to identify the image I'm looking for. Even if Google is guilty of this heinous crime you accuse them of, MSN is guilty for EVERYTHING Google is. Their image searches work the same way (and btw, neither show ads on image search... at least not that I've seen). If you're saying that showing a thumbnail is a violation of a site's IP, then basically every text search is too. Any line from any book I look up has been indexed and stored on Google's (and Yahoo's, and MSN's, and A9's, etc) servers. Or what they've indexed from our site. We protect our IP storngly, but giving a 12 word preview of the text on another site (while giving full credit to that site) isn't violating anyone's IP. In fact, it's helping bring in an audience that we wouldn't otherwise have. I'm sorry Parker... I think you have an unfair reputation for bad ideas, but this one you are definately off on. Google doesn't nothing different than any of the other search engines when it comes to store and displaying its indexed materials. |
| #12 By 4994 (147.10.92.159) at 9/5/2005 2:33:02 AM |
|
Google should be sued and the employee concerned should be made to face the consequences of the agreement he signed.
What is the world coming to when you can't keep your to your word. An agreement is an agreement more when it's been signed. The fact is that Google is beginning to piss in other peoples pots. This post was edited by redman on Monday, September 05, 2005 at 02:34. |
| #13 By 8589 (66.169.103.95) at 9/5/2005 8:43:06 AM |
|
Hmmmm.... This is all a matter of conjecture. The guy could have been planning on switching jobs anyway due to personal problems, or need of more money, etc.... But being a smart man, he didn't quit one job until he had the other one lined up.
Possibly? :o) |
| #14 By 10896 (24.25.182.11) at 9/5/2005 10:38:54 AM |
| Wish Microsoft and Ballmer all the success in the world in this effort. A job that really needed to be done is the complete destruction of Google. |
| #15 By 61 (65.32.175.192) at 9/5/2005 3:43:10 PM |
|
Chris: How is Google stealing an employee? How about hiring him litterally the day after the man resigned from Microsoft, even though there is a non-compete agreement. Also, this guy had to be in talks with Google before he even quit.
Mr. Lee is in violation of a non-compete agreement just as much as Google is. |
| #16 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/5/2005 8:00:18 PM |
|
#15 "How is Google stealing an employee? How about hiring him litterally the day after the man resigned from Microsoft"
Now start over and explain to us all how that is "stealing" an employee, especially if it was done a day after he resigned from Microsoft? If that's your definition of stealing then there isn't a single company out there that isn't guilty of the same thing! Putting the non-compete agreements aside for just a second there is nothing wrong with this. Any smart employee will start searching for a new job before quitting their current job, there is nothing illegal about this and it is not considered stealing. "Also, this guy had to be in talks with Google before he even quit." And?!? Now we have differing views on non-compete agreements and perhaps when you start working and start changing jobs your views will change. But you are correct in saying that Mr. Lee is in violation of the non-compete agreement and now it is up to a judge (not us) to decide whether or not he is infact guilty of breaking the contract given that it was signed in the US and he is to be hired in China. The judge will not only have to look at whether or not the non-compete agreement is fair (e.g. some others have been ruled null and void as your employer cannot put measures in place to stop you from being able to find employment elsewhere) but also whether it can be applied across international laws. |
| #17 By 61 (65.32.175.192) at 9/5/2005 10:49:51 PM |
| When I start working? I happen to have my own company going. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:00:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
