EC To Pursue Antitrust Despite Microsoft's IE Move 484
snydeq writes "The European Commission will proceed with its antitrust case against Microsoft regardless of Microsoft's decision to strip IE from Windows 7 in Europe. Europe's top antitrust regulator said the EC would draw up a remedy that allows computer users 'genuine consumer choice,' noting that stripping out IE from Windows 'may potentially be positive,' but 'rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.' Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera, whose complaint to the European Commission at the end of 2007 sparked the initial antitrust investigation, said Microsoft is 'trying to set the remedy itself by stripping out IE. ... Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy,' he said."
Okay, enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this is /., where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity. But the EC is way out of line on this one.
First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's, when browsers were still a bit of a novelty. But it's 2009. *EVERY* OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple, Ubuntu, everyone. Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else. Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player, or calculator, or text editor, etc. How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC? Are they supposed to have Steve Ballmer commit seppuku? Announce they're going out of business? Drop to their knees and give handjobs to all the EC commissioners? If even a move that will put them at a serious disadvantage in competing with Apple and Linux isn't enough--then *WHAT EXACTLY IS*?
At this point the EC isn't helping the consumer, they just seem like they're being spiteful. They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service.
Okay diehard MS bashers, flame away.
Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely. I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane. I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.
Of course, not bundling a browser is problematic as well. The technologically illiterate, and even the semi-skilled could not figure out how to download a browser without having a browser to start with. All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.
wrong tag (Score:2, Insightful)
I see the tag damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudont, but I think the tag damnedbecauseyoudid is more appropriate. Do you not put a suspected thief on trial because he put down the TV he was stealing when the policeman stared right at him?
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
The consumer will still get Windows with an Internet browser.
I know this is already the case with some dealers, but now EU said it's totally up to them what to bundle with Windows and not a Microsoft decision.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:1, Insightful)
If I was Ballmer, I'd tell the EC to go fuck themselves, and then yank every Microsoft product from the shelves in the EU.
Unfortunately Microsoft is a publicly-traded corporation. They're liable to the shareholders to provide the maximum possible return on their investment, which means they're going to continue tolerating the EU as long as the potential returns from the European market are greater than the European fees, fines and levies.
Microsoft is a huge American corporation, so the EC is basically using them as a source for extra funding. If Microsoft were based in Europe this wouldn't be happening.
Yes, well... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual. In the EU, they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong.
Bracketing non-EU style commendation onto the situation is risking stereotypical generalization (and milk soaked Wheaties) - walk in their shoes a bit first, before you firebomb their reactions.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft were based in Europe this wouldn't be happening.
I doubt that. Many european companies have been fined by the EU for illegal business practices.
Re:wrong tag (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you not put a suspected thief on trial because he put down the TV he was stealing when the policeman stared right at him?
No because you can't convict people on suspicions alone. In the example you gave, the "suspected thief" didn't actually steal anything. He put the TV down before he stole because the police officer was staring right at him. That it may be "obvious" to our "sensibilities" that he was going to steal the TV is irrelevant. The law is functional because it does NOT allow us to jump to such conclusions, and require that someone ACTUALLY OFFEND and have this offense PROVEN for punishment to be inflicted upon them.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck you, OP, and everyone who uses mod-point-martyrdom, to express their point of view.
"I have karma to burn"
"I'll probably get modded down for this but..."
"Ok, flame away"
Just make your point, and leave that crap out next time.
Re:"MS breaking the law by bundling IE.."? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's monopoly abuse. Windows has a desktop monopoly. What Ubuntu or Apple does is not that important, they don't have a monopoly. If you do want to talk about the situation of Ubuntu and comparing it to Windows. Windows comes with IE and only IE or now maybe no browser at all (even less choice). Ubuntu comes with several terminal programs on the CD/DVD and you can install an other just and just as easily remove the one that was default.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
You miss the point. It is commentary on how Slashdot is hugely Anti-MS to the point of being retarded, and how posting anything supporting MS is a nice way to generate some hate.
Just make your point, and leave out the vulgarity next time.
OMG people! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a GOOD THING. I can't believe all the rabid anti-EU postings here. Somebody finally has the courage to stand up to Microsoft, and you people want to sting them up!
Look: Microsoft has obtained their monopoly by unethical means. They have maintained that monopoly by illegal means. They are illegally leveraging their monopoly to extend their dominance into other markets.
Thank goodness the EU has the guts to fight this.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's
I don't agree. MS still has a lot to gain by having their browser remain the "default". Thankfully, they got lazy and IE fell far enough behind that Firefox grabbed some market share... but several years ago it was very common to have IE-only web sites. This guaranteed that, even if you ran Mac or Linux OS software you still needed a Windows license to use certain sites on the internet.
They should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly to push into other markets, either. If Apple someday commands 90% of the market, we need to force them to include browsers besides Safari as well. Heck, until MS stopped making a Mac version of IE, Apple shipped that one.
How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
A wizard that comes up the first time you boot a new Windows install. The wizard can say, "check boxes next to all browsers you wish to install". Offer Opera, Safari, Mozilla, and IE. The next wizard page can ask which should be the default browser. Done.
I'm not a huge fan of MS's products, but I'm not a "basher" by any means. What they have is a monopoly in the desktop OS market as well as the office application market. They should not be allowed to use either monopoly to give them an advantage in other markets - including anything internet-related.
the browser arguement is lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly you lack fantasy... (Score:2, Insightful)
American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...
And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Cheers,
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
I also agree (is this really Slashdot, or has my DNS been spoofed), but lets just clear up that the EU don't want MS to ship without a browser, but with multiple browsers. However, Microsoft have it right. I don't want a new computer cluttered up with multiple browsers. There are some browsers I may not want installed (do I really trust Google's browser?). Some browsers may come with terms and conditions I don't like and quite frankly it's just clutter to me and confusion to others. If I install Ubuntu or Kubuntu, okay, I can get other browsers easily, but they do come with a default one installed. Finally, if you do install multiple browsers, who gets approved and who does not? And by who? If we get IE, Firefox and Chrome does Opera sue? If we add Opera then what about Links? And why stop with browsers? If WordPad is on there, then shouldn't TextPad be there too? And if Outlook's installed, then you've got to have Thunderbird. And Opera (again). And Mulberry.
It would be nice if there were some way of preventing Microsoft from leveraging IE on the back of Windows that wasn't worse than the problem itself. But not including a browser is worse and the EU proposal for multiple browsers is worse than that still, imo.
There have even been attempts to integrate the browser even more fully into the OS. Microsoft was exploring this (albeit initial efforts were ugly), but I guess the EU action put a crimper on it and the possibility we might see something more radical and better developed.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't miss the point at all. If you read the last story about this very topic, it was completely full of anti-European commission comments.
Some MS bashing would probably have made it more balanced. As it stands, all those people above are just gaming the mod system.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll join you in getting heavily modded down by the MS bashers, this whole thing is insane. MS says theyll remove the browser, but thats not good enough, they have to provide the browser, because not doing so would be providing less, and somehow also, via magic, not have it be used unless the user wants to.
Give me a break.
The goal is to make IE earn its marketshare by competing with other available Windows browsers. That's really not a bad goal, not when you consider that it would probably put a lot of pressure on IE to become better and more standards-compliant. It would mean IE being installed only when a user actually chooses it, just like Firefox or Opera or Chrome. More practically, since its rendering engine is used throughout Windows, it would probably mean IE being visible to the user and set as the default browser only when this is requested by the user.
You hardly need magic to make that happen. Imagine a simple, primitive sort of package manager that has only one task: connecting to a microsoft.com server and retrieving the latest download links for Chrome, Firefox, and Opera (etc.) allowing the user to choose a default browser. This package manager would also list IE and be able to do whatever is necessary to make it visible on the system and set as the default browser. All of these browser options could be listed side-by-side in an unbiased way, such as alphabetical order. Also, the package manager would have whatever programming is necessary to download and initiate the installation of the chosen browser, so you also avoid the chicken-and-egg problem of how an average user would download a browser without first having some kind of browser. Then you set that package manager to run on the first boot-up of Windows and you also make it available in the Control Panel so it can be changed at any time.
I'll admit I am a bit surprised that so many people are dissatisfied with this news. So far I have not seen such a person provide a constructive solution to whatever they perceived as a problem worthy of complaint (that part is less surprising). It didn't take me very long to think of one; maybe yours would be better.
Maybe he has an odd sense of humor? Perhaps he does that thinking "somewhere, some Slashdotter is going to complain about this." I bet he eats food you don't like and listens to music you don't like too, just to piss you off.
Really though the whole "M$" thing probably would have gone away some time ago if it weren't for the contempt it sometimes inspires. There are more egregious (and at the same time, less intentional) spelling errors and deviations out there. They just aren't as noteworthy because nothing brings out that "us versus them" element quite like a large powerful organization.
Let me see if I have this right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market. Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.
The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.
Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars. The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"
Microsoft complies, stripping out the IE user application from copies of Windows 7 to be distributed in Europe.
Opera and the EC, faced with getting exactly what they asked for, are now mad again because what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS. They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).
I'm sorry, but there is a line being crossed here where we went from semi-valid to out-right ridiculous. Strip down the OS, fine. Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system. Let retailers sell $5 CDs containing Firefox, Opera, Safari etc with their copies of Windows 7. If you want the OS to be a neutral platform for applications, then it has to be just that. If you try to mandate what browser IS bundled, you're defeating the whole point and just creating a new monopoly for whoever the lucky guy is whose browser you choose (likely Opera).
Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated. With IE currently holding around 41% of the total market, and Firefox with 47% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) it's pretty clear that a) it's not a monopoly anymore and b) bundling is not hurting other browsers.
What this really feels like is Opera is tired of being in last place (and probably especially pissed that up-start Chrome blew past them in just a month or two) and instead of capturing marketshare with a more compelling product, they're going to try and legislate themselves into a stronger market position.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, lately going for the obvious MS joke is a great way to get modded down as a Troll.
Re:Give the EU a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't really an American company, they have offices, design centers, and so on all over the world and can safely be considered multinational.
Re:"MS breaking the law by bundling IE.."? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
As a person who has always used AC to post on /. since 1997, get fucked.
I've watched people promote the mod system as the or a solution. Use the mod system to bash other points of view they disagree with. Burn posts. Neglect it on later posts so they get buried.
"That crap" is part of the system. "That crap" is why people are AFRAID to post. You rarely hear from people like me, because you've stuck AC posts at 0, and the default is 1. Mods aren't reading now, then, or later. They're VOTING, not moderating. This is why YOUR PROFANE POST IS RIGHT NOW A +5 INSIGHTFUL.
And now, you counter punch with anger at those that use mod points for or against a point of view, even making that point of view knowing it in the face of this prevailing use of mods points. Dickhead, you're part of the damn problem, you use the damn system to promote your shit too, and now you're a hypocrite.
MS is hated or heavily disliked on /. That's the norm. If you can't recognize that, you're a freaking moron. Everyone knows promoting MS or liking MS or hating the US or Republicans means your post is voted down, not moderated.
Re:Honestly you lack fantasy... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:1, Insightful)
Knowing Microsoft they will give "financial incentives" to bundle IE... Meaning this whole move of theirs is a meaningless act.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, "No manufacturer is going to be foolish enough to piss-off Microsoft by not installing Internet Explorer for them."
Just another way Microsoft will skirt around the antitrust issues. Too bad no one in the EU or USA had the kahunas to do what needed to be done a decade ago when it would've actually made a difference.
The mother of all shill storms... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is this most amazing shill swarm going on all over the web because of this issue. On comments to the New York Times article, even on Microsoft's own web site where they calmly state that out of respect to the EU ruling they would desist from bundling IE in Europe, the comment section is filled from comments from their own sock puppets. It is time somebody spoke out about this. This is no less than the "Death of Web 2" and free speech. Just watch how fast this gets modded to oblivion, for example, in spite of the fact that Slashdot has long been known as a place where the voice of the people can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out by the mighty roar of the powerful.The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
Rule number one for keeping a tyrant in power is to control information. If you control information, you control the truth. By artificially keeping Slashdot skewed in their favour, Microsoft is trying to hide the truth from the public. Their strategy is failing, and what we see right now is their usual gut reaction: try to throw more people and more money at the problem. However, the harder they try, the more light will shine on their shady methods and expose them.
Re:Honestly you lack fantasy... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I agree with EU. American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada. This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers. How do I browse the above web page? With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page. I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do... And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years? Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE? Cheers,
Oops, messed the previous reply up with the quote tags. Here we go again. Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
SAP [wikipedia.org]
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
That wouldn't actually be a bad idea. When the user first turns on the computer, a screen should pop up with the following:
As a result of recent EU regulations, please choose a preferred internet browser.
That should get people riled up!
Ballot screen is a bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.
Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented? WTF is going on with the EU?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.
"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.
Uhh? The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine. From MS's blog:
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.
Re:Let me see if I have this right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.
The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.
Evidence is everywhere of this. Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share? Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes, that is due cause for the law to step in.
Re:Wait what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because in this case, the Windows platform is the monopoly. Microsoft already enjoys freedom from real competition there. The platform monopoly is not being contested.
The EU is saying that Microsoft must be fair about the applications market on their platform. They should not create advantages for themselves through distribution by bundling with the OS, or by crippling competitors' code.
Having said that, I think Microsoft's solution of not distributing IE with the OS was a good one.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
You rarely hear from people like me, because you've stuck AC posts at 0, and the default is 1.
That's why I read at -1. The moderation system can bring some good points to light, but there's good stuff if you burrow down, or just read past the point most people burn their mod points on. If you're on 1, you can miss some good stuff.
Re:deserved (Score:3, Insightful)
djupedal (584558) Alter Relationship on Friday June 12, @12:03PM (#28309309) You have to stop and take a look at this from the EU point of view.
In the US, we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual. In the EU, they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong.
A good example of this; Open source solutions, a free alternative or try to promote a free GUI alternative (opera, Ubuntu, Firefox). While the EU is more likely to enforce some business restrictions; a top down approach. This is a predominantly American website, so of course you're going to see mods like that. And yes; some are of course going to be xenophobic (goodness knows we're a xenophobic nation), but the way we want solutions is simply inherently different (I believe) because of our culture.
So when the EC does what we see to be an overbearing government standard to protect its people, some Americans see it as trying to interfere with fair business practices. I'm not here trying to convince you that you're wrong, but perhaps being a bit quick to judge.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
negative, read groklaw for instance and the commissions statements:
roughly: "we want the users to have more choice, not less"
Microsoft does the ONE thing that will hurt innovation in the long run and increases the chance that users will end up getting IE instead of an alternative browser, by not providing any method at all to chose an alternative browser easily. You can bet your ass that "Microsoft Windows without IE" will have big fat "INSTALL IE NOW" icons on the desktop and popups appearing randomly.
The European commission is 100% correct for condemning this move.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if IE is integrated in the OS but able to be disabled, which is far less harmful than this move of Microsoft.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
MS broke the law, they will be punished for it, even if they stopped breaking the law.
Or are you saying that if a serial killer stops killing, he shouldn't go to jail?
Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser
The problem is that IE is not simple. MS markets it as a fully featured browser, so people use it. If IE was like MSPaint (compared to Photoshop), everything would be OK, people would use it to download a real browser.
Apple and Linux do not have a monopoly, so they can do whatever they want. If Apple or some distribution of Linux replaces Windows in market share, they will be subjected to the same laws.
Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC?
Well, the EC was considering the option to force MS to include a program that lets the consumer choose a browser (and have more than one choice).
They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service.
The whole thing will reduce the number of IE users and less IE users is good, so they are doing a public service.
Apple not a monopoly in the OS market (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop with the stupidity, enough with the ignorance: MS is treated differently because it enjoys a monopoly, and has a proven track record of abusing it.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple? OSX + Safari. How is it any different? Remember, the complaint isn't IE's integration with Windows any more. It's all about the very fact it's included at the expense of other browsers.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should MS be the only one, when it's just a matter of scale?
Because it is entirely a matter of scale. Microsoft use their dominance (monopoly) in one market to gain an advantage in another (web browsers).
So if Windows wasn't popular, it wouldn't be a problem to bundle IE in?
Correct.
history matters (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that they bundle a browser. It's that they bundle IE, which through MS's previous law-breaking, spawned an ecosystem of non-standard, IE-only websites. These days, those 'websites' are largely web-based corporate functions (like time tracking systems and incident tracking systems). Those packages have been able to continue down their IE-only garden paths on the assumption (supported by Microsoft marketing) that IE will already be there on 95% of computers sold, and if a business standardizes on Windows, 100%.
That has contributed to Windows lock-in, which was the basis of the original IE antitrust action. So, while it'd be okay if Microsoft were to bundle Firefox or Chrome, bundling IE is still problematic. Now, they could remove all the non-standard stuff from IE and then bundle it relatively harmlessly. But, of course, the non-standard stuff is the reason Microsoft built IE in the first place - so they could extend their monopoly position to the web, making non-Windows desktop systems that much less viable. And it would've worked, except for Firefox, which being open source was not 'killable'. As it is, the web has gravitated towards standards despite IE. But that'd have been much harder to do without a first-class browser like Firefox able to survive in the vacuum created by IE. And without firefox, there probably never would've been Safari, iPhone, Android, etc.
Still, even though Microsoft hasn't been as successful as they'd have liked in monopolizing the Internet, they still have had some success, especially in the corporate arena. So what's the EU to do? Nothing?
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft paying "incentives" to OEMs to load or make IE the browers on the system would be a problem for Microsoft, again in regards to EU anti-trust laws.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft *never took that away* from the user. Ever. Nothing EVER stopped you from installing Mosaic, or Netscape, or Opera, or Firefox, or Safari. Never in the history of Microsoft have they taken away the "choice of a different browser."
But they significantly decreased the likelihood of the user making that choice when they started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
You're either completely full of shit, or completely delusional. I don't know which.
I hope they'll bleed. And stop whining about the EU only wanting to make money because their fines are a tiny drop in the financial ocean.
The only press we in the US see about the EU summarizes as:
* EU sues highly-successful American company for dubious reasons, imposes gigantic fines.
What are we supposed to believe the motive is?
"EU fines European company" isn't going to sell newspapers in the USA, is it? Do you want me to dig up the list of European companies that have been fined massive amounts by the EU, or will you just take my word for it? (You could search for it, it's on europa.eu somewhere.)
Consider reading some non-USA media if you want a more balanced world view. I read Spiegel [spiegel.de] as well as news from my own country.
Re:Welcome to Communism 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that more the fault of the dumb bastard than the karma whore?
Perhaps. It's still obnoxious, though.
"Oh, I am the martyr of Slashdot! The one person cursed to be here, while holding a high opinion of Microsoft! I will surely be modded down for this, which will simply be the end of me - but so be it! Let it end, then - let my torment be ended at the hands of the Slashdot collective mind..."
Wah wah wah... So you came to a corner of the internet where people tend to bash Microsoft and you're not someone who's into that. Get over it! Just say things like "I think Microsoft Powershell is pretty neat" or "I think the Common Language Runtime is a really great way to bring different programming languages together" or whatever else positive things you have to say about Microsoft... And don't sweat the reaction from the mythical "collective". You got to be the change you want to see in the world (or in this case, the website) - hopefully the "change you want to see" doesn't include more whining. I know for me it doesn't...
Re:Let me see if I have this right... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. They haven't told Microsoft what is acceptable, and in the meanwhile Microsoft has a product to ship. They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.
But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern. We don't like your solution so we are going to come up with our own and mandate you use it even though the solution you put forth breaks no laws.
Furthermore, all of the information [euractiv.com] coming out of the EC's office for the last several months makes it very clear that what they intend to do is to force Microsoft to either bundle or provide a splash screen dialog to download alternate browsers. It isn't the least bit presumptuous to assume that the EC is going to do exactly what it has been threatening to do.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple? OSX + Safari. How is it any different? Remember, the complaint isn't IE's integration with Windows any more. It's all about the very fact it's included at the expense of other browsers.
No... it's about MS abusing their monopoly position.
To little to late (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with both the DOJ and EU is it is always to late.
In 1994-1996 when Netscape, Dr DOS, WordPerfect, Novell, etc were getting their fudge packed by Microsoft, nothing was being done. Then in sweeps the DOJ in the late 90's and by the time anything is done in 2002....all of those companies that were wronged are out of business. Or had dropped those products or are in a different business.
You could slap them on the wrist for killing the competition half a decade ago. You could totally ignore the competition they were killing now in a different way. You could enrich the government with fines from Microsoft. What you could not do, is make the other companies that were harmed "right" again.
If the EU lets Microsoft unbundled. Then they just offer OEMs advertising money and discounts (all in backroom deals) to ONLY bundle IE. The problem is the screwed up position MS has put everyone in by abusing their monopoly power. The marketplace has not decided IE was the best browser. OEMs will not be deciding on the best browser on their own, they will be twisted to use IE only. That leaves the poor choice of bundling multiple web browsers. Making the government decide which browsers do or don't go into Windows is a poor choice. But not as poor as letting Microsoft decide.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is /., where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity. But the EC is way out of line on this one.
Wouldn't it be nice if people had a clue before making such strong, declarative statements?
First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's, when browsers were still a bit of a novelty. But it's 2009. *EVERY* OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple, Ubuntu, everyone. Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else.
That would make a lot fo sense if MS were being convicted of the crime of bundling a browser with an OS. That's not what they're being convicted of, just the particular method by which they're doing it.
Here's a car analogy. Bob is arrested for grand theft auto after taking the action of driving a car home. Tom and Sue are not arrested, even though they also drove a car home. The difference is that Tom and Sue each owned the cars they drove home. Microsoft is guilty of antitrust abuse for the action of bundling a browser with their monopolized OS. Apple and Canonical also bundled a browser with their OS, but not having a monopoly on either market were not doing any damage or breaking the law.
. Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player, or calculator, or text editor, etc.
So what? Just because an action is common means that in unusual circumstances it can never be illegal. Lots of people drive cars home. That doesn't mean it is never illegal to drive a car home.
ow would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
Yu use the install disk your OEM gave you that comes with a browser or you use a disk you copied a browser to. If you can't handle that, you can't handle doing a fresh install of an OS in the first place. Not that this matters since this article is about how MS has decided not to ship IE and how the EU is likely going to force a different remedy such as making it easy to install different browsers from Windows.
Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC?
There are quite a few things they can do, including dropping IE and installing a competing browser by default, but in truth MS is screwed. The time for them to act would have been before they broke the law and deciding not to do it. At this point they've been breaking the law for years and done a lot of damage. Criminals are not usually ordered to stop breaking the law, ignore reparations and let to walk away. They're going to be punished and made to fix some of the damage their criminal actions have caused.
At this point the EC isn't helping the consumer, they just seem like they're being spiteful.
At this point you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about and if you think just stopping a crime is enough to get you out of trouble with the police then you're naive.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely. I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane. I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.
Maybe you're forgetting, this is punishment for a crime. Your argument is like saying it is inane to force someone to sign their house over to another and then spend three years in a small room. That's perfectly true unless they've been caught extorting money for years from the guy they're supposed to sigh the house over to.
All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.
The EU is not mandating that, it's MS's idea. Your goals are not the goals of the EU commission who is charged with stopping particular crimes and creating remedies to restore the market to proper operation.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
"commentary on how Slashdot is hugely Anti-MS to the point of being retarded"
Which is why the first three comments are pro MS, and modded up, I suppose.
Re:history matters (Score:1, Insightful)