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 el
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.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:5, Informative)
MS's plan is to allow OEMs to include whatever browser they want in the EU version of Windows. No manufacturer is going to be foolish enough to ship a system without some sort of browser installed.
Re: (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.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad no one in the EU or USA had the kahunas...
Kahuna is a Hawaiian word that translates something like "wizard" or "expert". I think what you want is the Spanish word for testes: cojones. But the idea of the US and EU needing wizards to deal with MS is pretty awesome, too.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can go all the way to the store, but you can't have an Internet Browser on your USB stick?"
They were able to buy a computer, but why can't they just code their own Internet Browser?
My argument makes more sense than yours because all computers come with the tools to write a browser, but they all do not come with a USB stick. Having the skills to shop at a store in no way implies that a typical user would know to purchase a USB drive and then find a way of installing a browser on to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to the shop, buying the Windows CD you need, install Windows on a new PC is easy. But buying an USB stick and get the Internet browser is beyond human capability.
Get real.
Re: (Score:2)
They also get an option in the installer which says: install or not install IE
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The simple truth is that OEMs already have the opportunity to delete the IE icon, and put a big fat Firefox on the desktop. But that's not customer choice, either. People who know they want Firefox are going and downloading it; OEMs have the option to bundle Firefox now, but usually don't.
I have a real problem with forcing Microsoft to remove functionality from the Operating System. I maintain that the solution to Microsoft's evil deeds (and they were sufficiently ill to be called that, in my opinion) is to
Re: (Score:2)
This is like saying speeding is ok, as long as you pay the fines.
And customers will get the damn Internet browser, if the reseller can't be arsed to put one in, they should be out of business anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Fining a company for misbehaving is not the perfect solution. The best thing to do is to make it impossible for them to break the law in the first place.
You're fucking hilarious.
It's impossible to prevent people from breaking the law without putting them into padded rooms.
This is like saying speeding is ok, as long as you pay the fines.
Another stupid comment from you; speed limits are set to make money, not to save lives. If we wanted to save lives, we'd find an alternative to cars. (Hint: there are numerous alternatives already.)
And customers will get the damn Internet browser, if the reseller can't be arsed to put one in, they should be out of business anyway.
I agree with this, but it's still stupid. I predict that the majority of computers sold with Windows will come with IE whether Microsoft is allowed to make it part of the default OEM install or
Re: (Score:2)
Where said company is a monopoly supplier then at best fining them is pointless. Unless the fine is large enough to bankrupt the company in short order it'll be the customers who wind up paying the fine. (Plus any interest if the fine was big enough to cause short term cash flow problems.)
The best thing to do is to make it impossible for them to break the law in the first place.
Making it more difficult for a company to break the law in futur
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
While I fully second your opinion that MS should be honored to remove the IE from Windows 7 and therefore create more choice, I would say the the EC should continue its antitrust case until:
- this is officially communicated by MS, and
- the antitrust committee decides that only the inclusion of the IE in Windows was the reason for the antitrust case.
Forcing MS to present other (competing) browsers at installation time would be completely wrong, already because somebody would need to make that choice of brows
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 s
Re:The mother of all shill storms... (Score:4, Funny)
You could try not being a paranoid nutjob, for starters.
You got the paranoid nutjob punctuation rules nailed, at least. Now all you need is a wall-of-text website with dubious color choices and randomized font styles.
Oh wait, you got that covered: http://www.tropicalcoder.com/BrokenInternet.htm [tropicalcoder.com]
I'll let you get back to your time cube theories, then.
Re: (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 Wind
Re: (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 own
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:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
SAP [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
just because your government is totally corrupt, don't assume that other people's governments are too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably the same kind of user who also wouldn't install Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know, I think it is unfair that Microsoft bundles this command line FTP client with the operating system. The end-user deserves more choice here.
Ha ha. Just kidding. But you get what I'm saying, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Total nonsense! The EU is doing what the USA should have done a decade ago.
And that's precisely the problem: a decade has passed since this should have been done. Conditions have changed, and unbundling the browser no longer stands any chance of countering IE's unfair advantage. More likely, in fact, that advantage will only get worse.
Here's how it works: without a bundled browser, getting a browser becomes significantly more of a hassle, unless of course you use the handy built-in "Get Internet Explorer" bookmark, conveniently provided on the user's desktop. Microsoft will likely
Re: (Score:2)
The solution should be streamlined into the windows installation/post build setup. When a user turns on his/her/its new Dell, Windows prompts for some information like computer name, user name, etc. Why can't it prompt at that time for a browser? User selects browser, Windows installs it, sets it as default browser and problem solved.
The solution is simple but MS wanted to play hardball with EU as in: fuck you, we'll remove the browser. They know that removing the browser will fuck up people who aren't tech
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP!! (Score:2)
I hate Microsoft as much as any one. I mean I *really really* hate the Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft - A LOT! But for God's sake, parent is exactly right - does anybody think the glorious EU (NAFTA on steroids) meddling in *anything* is a good idea, much less OS design?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally even though IE's not my browser of choice if they bundled Firefox I'd still download IE for those few websites that don't function right under Firefox. Not to mention I'd need it and just about every other browser if I had to do any Web Design (Which I occasionally do)
BTW love the sig best laugh I've had all week
Re: (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 browse
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: (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.
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Informative)
There is money to be made through search provider revenue (Mozilla, Opera) and donations (Mozilla).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Others have pointed out that MS is being treated as a special case because it is a special case; neither Apple nor Canonical enjoy Microsoft's monopoly position. They did a good eno
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I disagree.
This investigation in the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft started in 1993! Microsoft has been using a number of tactics to delay the process, so they could continue to gain browser market share using their Windows monopoly. Same for the server market share (SMB-CIFS).
They were fined years ago, did they pay ? No. (Have they payed anything yet to the EC ?)
Secondly, the EC never asked for the browser to be stripped from Windows 7, it should have been stripped ten years ago!
Fact is that Micros
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: (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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, lately going for the obvious MS joke is a great way to get modded down as a Troll.
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: (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 M
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just make your point, and leave that crap out next time.
Part of the point of comments including such verbage is to highlight the abuse of moderation of the parent comment.
Abuse of moderation is not corrected by the slashdot "staff" so the only way to get it fixed is to make sure people notice it.
Re: (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 modera
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: (Score:2)
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: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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the EU to do? Nothing?
Well, the EU did sit by and watched while all this was happening. And now, it's too late and the cure is worse than the disease. I would prefer that they did nothing at this point. All they should do is educate users about web standards and security while making sure MS doesn't cross it's limits again. But this witch hunting an OS for including a browser at a time when the main reason to use a computer is to go online is full of crock.
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 comp
Re: (Score:2)
Second, to parent, as the first response mentioned, this is an issue of leveraging a monopoly to get an unfair advantage in the market, which MS did. This is what is illegal and punishable. As others have mentioned, it seems a little silly to deny Microsoft from unbundling it's browser altogether. It looks like the EU wants to dictate that MS include some competing browsers and make sure they get thrown in front of users.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose the silver lining is that we'll still be able to open any old Explorer window (you know, the file manager thingy, not IE) and just type a URL there. IE is too deeply tied into Windows to really remove it altogether; my guess is that the only change will be the disappearance of the blue "e" icon.
They've already de-coupled that particular feature in Vista. Not because of the "monopoly" crap, but so they could run IE in a sandbox environment for security purposes. Typing a URL in an explorer bar now
Re:Okay, enough already (Score:4, Interesting)
EU want MS to include a choice in the Win7 installer that gives a user the choise to install either EI, Firefox or Opera. Instead MS just went out to remove the choice of having a brower entirely.
That's the worst idea I ever heard. Hey, I just wrote a browser called BlakeyBrowse, how do I get in on this gravy train? It's a wrapper around MSHTML, but mine includes 15 animated ads on every page load! Since it's built into the Windows installer, and customers don't understand this choice when they make it, I'll get thousands of installs even though it's a piece of shit. Woo!
Why should Microsoft have to support Firefox and Opera? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
Even if Microsoft is forced to stop their anti-competitive practises they still don't give the user the choice of a different browser.
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."
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?
Re: (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 a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What, exactly, is enough? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
*sigh*. Not this old canard again. Do you understand what the term "convicted" means? Apparently not.
"convicted" means you have been found guilty of criminal activity. This requires a criminal trial, and possibly a jury. Microsoft has never even been accused of any criminal misdoings by any legal authority, much less actually gone to trial.
You seem to be confusing a civil lawsuit with a criminal trial. They are not equivlent. A civil lawsu
Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the EU should mandate that major sellers like Dell offer at least one computer model in each line with Linux (one netbook, one desktop, one notebook).
This is fucking retarded. A private corporation is under no obligation to offer anything in the way of computers.
And nobody would buy the fucking things anyway.
Learn to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Informative)
Because Microsoft used illegal tactics to gain that market share. They forbid OEM's to bundle Netscape with Windows, which means they used their monopoly on the home OS market to get a monopoly in another market. This is illegal and should not go unpunished. Not even when Microsoft tactics delayed the whole process for ten years.
The EU does the same thing to European companies that refuse to obey the law.
On what basis? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the basis? That they're NOT bundling IE now? I despise Microsoft as much as the next Ubuntu DVD-wielding geek, but if they pull IE out of Windows 7 in Europe, along with the stuff they opened up (apparently to the EC's satisfaction) haven't they complied with the EC's demands? Does the EC have something else on Microsoft?
I'm just a bit puzzled here. Someone enlighten me.
Re: (Score:2)
if there is no base, then the case would be closed. that's the way courts work.
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:wrong tag (Score:5, Funny)
He wasn't stealing it. He just wanted to check how difficult it is to carry the TV around, in order to make a more informed purchase decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fair point.
Others don't seem to like the EU saying just not bundling isn't enough. I suspect the EU fear Microsoft are simply going to not bundle IE, but instead make it very easy to install with nothing pointing to competing browsers.
Think along the lines of a 'connect to
Re: (Score:2)
How about, "Being able to display web content is now an essential part of using your operating system. As the makers of that operating system, we've provided a web browsing application that does a very nice job. You can change to another web browsing any time you want, just by visiting this link: www.microsoft.com/f
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but who the fuck thinks its wrong for a company to say "Hey, you need a browser, want ours?" IN THEIR OWN FUCKING PRODUCT?
I used this analogy once on another forum...lets see if I can get flamed here too...
I make widgets. Now, not only do I make widgets, but I'm a smart and greedy son of a bitch. So I own the mine where the metal comes from for my widget, I own the patents on the mining equipment, I own the transportation...I own it fucking all.
Now, imagine that exactly 1 widget is required in
Re: (Score:2)
Of course in the physical world eventually your patents expire and other people could make your widgits and undercut your profits forcing you to compete.
Both browsers are technically free, so I don't see how it's a big fucking deal. But I'm with you in the fact that the I feel what the EU is doing is wrong and I don't even use any Microsoft products.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
If I'm shopping and a cop starts checking me out major I'll go shop someplace with less cops.
Are you rooming with BadAnalogyGuy by any chance? Or did you just subscribe to his newsletter?
Microsoft's bundling of the browser was found to be anticompetitive only because they offered superior terms to OEMs which did not bundle competing browsers. Since they have stopped doing that, bundling IE is no longer anticompetitive. I agree that Microsoft should not get a free pass for unbundling IE, but I also believe t
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: (Score:2)
Give the EU a break (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, have you seen the economy lately? How else are they supposed to have a balanced budget without leveling massive fines on American companies?
Re: (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.
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.
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 d
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
BS. Even though I live in EU (well, in one of backward and corrupt new memberstates...but it shows what MS accomplishes when given free reign) there are still "IE-only" webpages. Of some administration usually. ".doc-only" too.
Heck, even the software required to run a company (tax related, provided "free") is available only for Windows. And it's made with my money. And there was quite vast campaign of criticism when the plans for "windows-only" were acknowledged. In any normal place it would be enough.
But h
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:Let me see if I have this right... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
They were nailed for abusing a monopoly, not being one.
The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.
But the media player wasn't stripped out. It was removed from a special version of Windows while people who bought that version still had to pay for it. It was functionally no different than throwing the player away and failed miserably to remedy the market imbalance. That market is still horribly broken (for numerous reasons).
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"
WRONG! The EU said no such thing. They said they think MS is guilty and started looking for ways to undo the damage MS had done over the years. MS then said they were pulling IE from the next version of Windows voluntarily in the hopes the EU would not impose a harsher and more effective punishment and remedy.
...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).
Opera doesn't even want their browser bundled with Windows. They primarily make money licensing the mobile version. They want the market fixed so they don't have to spend millions engineering around broken Web pages that were the intentional result of MS's crime. The EU wants the market restored to competition. Just stopping a crime does not solve the damage done by it. It's like if a person stabs you then when the cops show up they pull out the knife and say, "see I stopped, it's all good". In such a situation is it "unfair" and "biased" if the police throw the stabber in prison and make them pay the medical bills of the victim?
Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.
It's way, way, way too late for that. OEMs have a vested interest in supporting fewer applications. OEMs have a vested interest in stalling IE since only it can deal with the broken IE only pages and applications on the Web. That is a direct result of a criminal action. It's like letting the robber keep all the money they stole so long as they stop. It is far too little, far too late.
Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.
You're completely ignorant. This isn't about a browser monopoly. It's about their browser having an unfair market share because of leveraging of a desktop OS monopoly. If you don't even know what crime MS committed how can you sit here and tell us why the punishment for that crime is not suitable?
What this really feels like is...
...Incredible ignorance or astroturfing.
Re: (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
Why does this feel like schlong swinging? (Score:2)
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:"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:"MS breaking the law by bundling IE.."? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 xenophob