Microsoft Behind $12M Opera Settlement

An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET it has been confirmed that Microsoft is behind the $12 million dollar payment to Opera (speculated earlier here). The payment was to avoid legal action over interoperability issues with Opera's web browser and Microsoft's MSN portal. On at least three separate occasions, Opera has accused Microsoft of deliberately breaking interoperability between its MSN Web portal and various versions of the Opera browser--charges that the software giant has repeatedly denied."

Comments

This is why we hatessss them

[KamuSan]

Unbelievably childish business practices. Grow up, Microsoft!

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if only SBC/Yahoo! will quit blocking access of Opera to their valence of MyYahoo!....

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[damballah]

Dude, Opera accepted the money, they're as responsible as MS

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[plj]

OK, I promise: we will use only legal business practices in the future. To achieve this and still keep our market postition we also will, from this day forth, patent everyting under the sun and later sue anybody whom we think is infringing into oblivion.

Yours,
Bill

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[DrEldarion]

Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Just because they settled doesn't mean they're guilty. They most likely just decided that it would be cheaper to settle than fight it. Settlements ALWAYS includes a "this isn't an admission of guilt" clause.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[torpor]

So David is really responsible for the rampages of Golliath, eh?

Opera accepting the money has nothing to do with Microsofts shady business practices. WTF?

By your reasoning, a woman is as guilty as a rapist for the rape committed ... eh? This makes no sense.

A $12million settlement, which is a punishment for having done something wrong, followed by well-propagated news on the reasons for this punishment, is the only safeguard this industry has from future shadiness of this nature... you saying that "Opera are 'as responsible'" for this is just ludicrous, and underlines a serious lack of understanding of the nature of responsibility ...

Microsoft attempted to weild un-defeatable might in an attempt to squeeze competition out of the marketplace, and 'get rid of a company that is clearly annoying them', and the justice system caught this, and ruled for the little guy, as it should, punishing Golliath all the while.

Go Opera! If I wasn't so satisfied with Safari, I'd switch ... but thank you anyway, U.S. Justice System, for ensuring that my rights as a consumer, and my ability to weild choice are protected in the browser marketplace ...

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[the_mad_poster]

What, you think they wouldn't if they could? They were beaten to the punch on all the worthwhile patents. The only reason they don't run around slapping people with patent infringement claims is that they know they're on shaky ground in that department, and that's probably one weak spot that Microsoft couldn't throw enough money at to become an industry leader in.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but the story is bullshit. For one, Microsoft have not admitted liability, they have just settled out of court

A little Norwegian company which poses no threat to Microsoft, and in fact builds it business on Microsoft products (Windows) claims they have targeted them. It's a non-story. On one occasion all non-IE browsers were locked out of MSN. This was quickly reversed, and certainly wasn't targeted at Opera.

On another occasion an incompetent programmer worked around a bug with margins on UL (instead of setting margin: 0 to give lists no margin, you had to do -30px to reset the default 30px margin to 0) - but the bug wasn't actually present in Opera, so the text was overlapping.

The stupid conspiracy theorists claim that the programmer who wrote the style sheet was somehow acting on company policy to 'get Opera'. I call bullshit on that. Microsoft is a big company - and even in my small company, my manager doesn't direct how I write my style sheets. I mean for fuck's sake! A simple coding error is treated as a big conspiracy.

Here's what Wikipedia says on the whole story:

In October 2001, the MSN web page was changed to lock out most non-Microsoft browsers, shortly after the launch of Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6. According to initial statements by Microsoft, this was because other browsers did not support XHTML correctly, and users should therefore upgrade to its own Internet Explorer. This issue also affected other browsers in similar ways. Microsoft backed down after being confronted with proof showing that, if anything, other browsers were better at rendering XHTML than Internet Explorer.

In February 2003, Opera Software employees discovered that the MSN home page sent a different style sheet to Opera users than it sent to Internet Explorer. The style sheet sent to Opera users, a generic 'site.css', contained the style rule ul {margin: -2px 0px 0px -30px;}, which created a 30-pixel negative left margin, causing content to appear overlapping other content. The Internet Explorer style sheet did not contain this rule.

This gave the impression something was wrong with Opera. The Netscape 6 style sheet also specified the same -30px margin, to work around known bugs in that browser (bugs not present in Opera). This same code was present into the supposedly generic style sheet, which was served to Opera by a Javascript checking routine which specifically detected Opera. This was either a deliberate decision by a programmer to make Opera look bad, or was simply the action of someone who was aware of Opera's existence, but unaware of its CSS capabilities (which are in fact better than those of Internet Explorer), and hence chose to send the browser a generic (albeit badly coded) style sheet.

PS. Don't forget, for Microsoft it's quicker to pay $10 million and get them to go away than to even investigate. Lawyers are expensive, and if you think in every case settled 'justice' was done, you are incredibly naive.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

I love watching them throwing money to non-microsoft corporations just like they do to non-profit charity organizations (for the sake of tax deduction), but I really hate watching them getting away with all the anti-competitive business practices with no hitch. To them all the settlement money is like fines for a parking ticket. All the violations by microsoft are minor and as long as they can send a check to the complainers everything will be all right. Maybe I should file a complain so that they will give me a small share, with which I can probably get by for a year or two unemployed.

Mod me down redundant because it is. So is the strategy MS has been executing to date.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[ScottGant]

If they settle, they're guilty. Thats how the public sees it and in truth that's the way I see it.

So what that there is a clause in there. If they pay money out, then they have something to hide, and they're only paying it off so when they lose in court, it will be MUCH more than the payoff. So yes, it would be cheaper than being found guilty.

If they WERE right, they could take it all the way to court knowing that they would win...and then having the other side pay the court costs. MS didn't do this, they knew they were wrong and GUILTY so they decided to pay their way out...again.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[damballah]

" followed by well-propagated news on the reasons for this punishment"

Neither is willing to confirm or deny the claims. The way it looks to me is that MS is paying Opera to shut up about it. Opera is getting money, but that's all they're gettting.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

"A little Norwegian company which poses no threat to Microsoft"

Except the fact that Pocket IE is a very bad browser, and Opera is getting big on mobile devices, a market Microsoft is trying to gain a stronger foothold in.

As for your comments about conspiracy theories, this isn't just something which has happened once. Opera has been specifically detected and served broken code on several occasions on MSN.com, and lately on MSNBC.com. In addition to this, a Microsoft spokesperson lied about Opera to the media.

You are criticizing others for assuming too much, yet you don't even bother to inform yourself on the matter.

This isn't just one case of a bad style sheet on MSN. This is something which has repeated itself over and over.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[morgajel]

You know what they say, 'the proof is in the puding' or something...

compelling evidence

I don't use Opera, but I've seen this firsthand.
I also remember a while back where they flat out blocked mozilla from MSN, but the bad public backlash made them reverse it. I actually tried that one for myself and saw that it was real.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty is nice, but lets face it- we've tried that. they've broke the system countless times. they've keep saying "we'll change, honest. I'll never hit you again" and we keep falling for it like an abused wife.

MS won't stop until we actually PUNISH them... perhaps a $20 billion fine would help?
that might knock some sense into them. and for each breach afterwards, another $1 billion fine.
not in software- they'ed just spend $.01 in CD's and ship a couple thousand versions of their latest and greatest OS.

Someone needs to call shananigans on these bastards.
Honestly, I wish Opera didn't have to settle. Theoretically, they could win the case, but by the time they won, $12 million woulda been pocket change for a hobo.

This is probably one of my greatest pet peeves with Micosoft. They fricken abuse the system.
They're just not trustworthy.

Innocent until proven guilty is nice, but how long are we going to wait to finally punish them for the things we KNOW they did wrong?

(sorry, don't take that as a personal attack, I just get worked up over MS).

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[baudilus]

Not to mention that they have apparently repaired the problem. I checked using IE and Opera, and now you can see everything.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[microbox]

The Opera crowd repeatedly asked the MSN crowd to fix the style sheet. The style sheet used for IE worked fine with Opera. The correction involved less work than this post. Say what you want about M$'s motives, but if I were Opera I'd sue too.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[nolife]

company which poses no threat to Microsoft, and in fact builds it business on Microsoft products (Windows) claims they have targeted them.

Opera is cross platform and their business is far more then just Windows. IE and Opera compete on the embedded level also which MS does not currently have a monopoly on and can not just make them go away. This is more then Opera running on Windows not working on MSN by chance.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[torpor]

The way it looks to me is that MS is paying Opera to shut up about it.

Ah, okay, now that does sound a bit shifty. But hey, $12million is a lot of hush money for a small company like Opera ... and thats money they don't have to pay their lawyers.

Seems to me you're right. This whole thing is fishy. I'd rather see it all in public, and for Microsoft to be forced to take responsibility for having fucked up ... but alas, money != responsibility ...

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's little of both I think.

1) Incompetent programmer? So you are saying that MSN web pages don't go thru some sort of testing scheme? seems unlikley, but possible.

2) But did you forget that this is the same company that used to code fake error msg's for programs running under DR-DOS? - and that, has been proven.

Conspiracy? I don't know - but either do you, so don't act like you do. If I had to put money on it, I say MS is gulity as charged.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[southpolesammy]

But the key is that there's no legal record of them being told they were wrong, nor any admittance of guilt. In essence, this protects them from setting precedent that can be used against them in a subsequent case for much larger damages.

It doesn't matter to the court whether the public opinion thinks they're guilty or not. And the only weapon the public has against actions like this is to not use the company's products, and we don't see that happening at all now, do we?

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Arker]

Umm no. Your facts are simply incorrect.

Opera was being sent a different style sheet, as well as a different html file, than IE or Netscape. This style sheet was not a generic one for non-IE browsers, as was verified to by using wget with a faked user-agent field. There were three style sheets, one for Netscape only, one for Opera only, and one for all other browsers. So Opera was definately specifically targetted with this. And the files sent to Opera contained commands to force them to layout improperly, whereas the generic files sent to IE and unknown browsers displayed just fine in Opera.

You can see screenshots and a detailed explanation of what was happening here.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[LanceTaylor]

It is "presumed innocent until proven guilty" - not just "innocent until proven guilty". Also, this is an individual right, not a corporate right and it applies to the government and law enforcement, not to individual opinions. Individuals are allowed freedom of thought and can presume that you are innocent or guilty anytime that they want, unless they are on a jury. Then they must follow the rule of law.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unbelievably childish business practices. Grow up, Microsoft!"

Not really. It's an unbelievably clever business practice. Assuming their browser monopoly made them more than $12MM, this was well worth the risk.

Measured in business terms, if it had a good ROI, it was not a childish business practice.

Unethical as advertising tobacco to children, perhaps, but still sound business.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[idesofmarch]

Please, no one goes to msnbc.com and the only people that visit msn.com are those who do not know how or care to change their IE home page. I do not see how this really even affected Opera to any great degree.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[The Spoonman]

which is a punishment for having done something wrong

No, it's not. It's a method of avoiding a lengthy trial. It's not an admission of guilt by any stretch of the imagination. Many companies settle because it's cheaper to do so than go to trial. My old employer would pretty much settle automatically on any lawsuit that was for under $20,000 because it would cost that much to just get their lawyers geared up. It's a relatively prudent business decision...do we pay $100,000 in order to avoid spending $20,000? MS made the same decsion..."It's impossible to prove we DIDN'T do something (the basis of all conspiracy theories), so do we spend millions and millions in court costs and negative advertising on a trial, or do we just give them $12M to go away?"

thank you anyway, U.S. Justice System, for ensuring that my rights as a consumer, and my ability to weild choice are protected in the browser marketplace

You really need to get a clue on how the justice system works before you start praising it. This is the biggest FLAW in the justice system. In order to stop these frivlous lawsuits, the law needs to change to protect corporations and individuals from them. Something along the lines of "If you bring suit, and lose, you're responsible for all the defendant's court and legal fees as well as punitive damages equal to thrice that amount" should do the trick. Then, companies like Opera will stop bringing suits against larger companies like Microsoft in the hopes of getting a settlement. They know MS will settle, they don't have to be right, or prove it in court. It's an easy $12M influx.

In this instance, Opera is the evil corporation manipulating the system for its own gain.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

You mean apart from the fact that MSN is used by millions upon millions of people, and that when they discover that it works fine in Internet Explorer but not in Opera, it gives the impression that it is Opera which doesn't work properly?

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Geoff-with-a-G]

There's some problems with your legal reasoning. Opera and Microsoft sat down together and agreed on the settlement. If it was some sort of foregone conclusion that Microsoft was going to lose big, then Opera wouldn't have agreed.

You can't just assume that any kind of court proceeding will find the ultimate truth of the matter. If you've followed many of the major IP law cases in the last couple years, you'd see that the outcomes are seldom easily predictable. Some judges don't understand the technology, sometimes the laws involved are outdated and difficult to map onto the situation at hand, and sometimes the laws seem to outright conflict with each other (DMCA vs. Fair Use). As a big company going into one of these cases, you won't get a certain victory or certain loss; you're lucky if you can get a fairly accurate guess at the odds.

That's where the settlement starts. If you're talking about a judgement of 20 million, and both sides think they've got a 50-50 shot, then they can settle on 10 million. If the plantiff thinks they've only got a 10 percent shot (which would be the case even if the defendent was pretty clearly in the right) then they'll happily settle for 3 million.

So maybe Microsoft was guilty here, maybe they weren't. All the settlement tells you is that the chance of them being found guilty and the size of the settlement were large enough that they were willing to spend 12 million to avoid it, and small enough that Opera was willing to accept only 12 million to give it up.

As to "paying their way out", it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. "Paying their way out" was what would have happened if they HAD been found at fault. It's a company, its purpose is to make money. Paying a fine IS defeat. It's not like this is a murderer who's getting out of the death penalty by paying his way out.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[mdielmann]

I don't quite agree. $12M is nothing to them, and allows them to legally say they did nothing wrong. This has two nice things: saves litigation costs (and you can bet there will be an appeal no matter who wins); and reduces strategy requirements (no need to worry about the story/lie you're telling in one case coming back to bite you in another case). I wouldn't be surprised if MS paid their lawyers more than that in the federal case. This link notes that the lawyers in the California class-action suit want $258M. If you look at the rates given, most are probably 10x too high, but $25M is still twice what MS paid Opera to just go away. That's not admission, that's hedging your bets and cutting your losses for a guarantee.

That said, I think they were guilty, which certainly influenced them to just make it go away.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Diplo]

A little Norwegian company which poses no threat to Microsoft, and in fact builds it business on Microsoft products (Windows)

Firstly Opera are a major player in the fast-growing mobile browser sector. They are in partnership with some of the biggest manufacturers, such as Nokia, IBM, Sony Ericsson, Kyocera, Sharp and Psion. Opera's small-screen rendering technology is far more advanced than anything Microsoft have, and they know it. Opera are also a powerful voice on the W3C committee (it was an Opera employee who came up with the idea of CSS) and are committed to web standards.

As well as offering true cross-platform support (LINUX, Mac, Windows, Solaris, OS/2, Symbian) Opera is also far more feature rich than anything Microsoft have. If you think Opera aren't a potential threat to Microsoft then you are incredibly naive.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. They fixed it within a few days. That's why the sites all have their own cached copies because Microsoft fixed the problem so quickly, and you couldn't actually go and check yourself, because, in response to criticism, Microsoft fixed the issue.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

Er.

I would be surprised if Microsoft's testing involves Opera. Not invented here, no real market share, I don't think so.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[pbhj]

I can't believe you actually hacked wikipedia just to give some weight to your argument ... they must pay you alot to work at M$. ;0)>

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[ckaminski]

$12 million dollars sure seems a lot more like hush money than simple "stop annoying me and go away" money.

For $12 million, if Microsoft were in the right, they'd have squashed Opera.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[nelsonal]

Occasionally it pays to spend the $100,000 and drive the poor sucker into the ground, as an example. This helps to cut down on baseless suits. You don't have to go to trial everytime, just often enough that the sue happy party wonders if they will be next.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Geoff-with-a-G]

Innocent until proven guilty is nice, but how long are we going to wait to finally punish them for the things we KNOW they did wrong?

Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal trials, not civil suits. It's referred to as the "burden of proof", and it's different for different things. For some stuff, you simply must prove that it is "more likely than not" that the defendent did something wrong. For others, you have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".

As for punishing them for things you "know" they did wrong, the difference is between the things that a judge knows they did wrong, and the things that you "know" they did wrong. I personally consider this a good thing, but if you have a problem with it, you should run for judge. See if enough of your voting peers agree with your fitness to render verdicts.

Having read only the link that you sent me, I personally believe there's a decent chance (say, 40-50%) that Microsoft broke the CSS intentionally. And you only made it up to 40-50% because I was including other experiences, like their having blocked Mozilla. If you treat the evidence on only its own merits, (which a judge should do) then maybe 20-30% chance that Microsoft intentionally broke it. I can definitely envision someone at MSN deciding that Opera is big enough to warrant their own file, then just doing a crappy job with it.

Or put another way, never attribute to malice what is easily explainable by incompetence.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

"Opera is getting money, but that's all they're gettting"

Not exactly. Opera gets a lot of press (free PR) from this one. And they all but said that it was Microsoft. It was not a partner or customer, and the settlement wouldn't affect future revenue sources at all. It was not a trademark or patent issue... They gave a lot of details what it was not about. So clearly, that limits the possibilities.

It sounds like it is a competitor, and Microsoft matches that, at least in the mobile market. And who else would be willing to pay just like that to make a problem go away? Who could afford it?

So Opera is getting away just fine. It gets lots of press, and everyone assumes that it's Microsoft, even though, strictly speaking, Opera stuck to the deal and didn't reveal the company.

The rumor that it is Microsoft has not been officially confirmed, but if you put two and two together, MS is the most likely candidate.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?! Are you THAT fucking dumballah?

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[ckaminski]

Except that curious little bit called Jury Nullification...

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

The public you are talking about is the slashdot idiots. They are not public you idiot. Public is using IE out there. That's what matters.

Oh by the way, do you have any proof that this is Microsoft? No. So you fuck head, you are talking bullshit, just like slashdot does. The amazing thing is that, you are openly admitting that you are an idiot. That's how stupid you are. Second, even if you admit they are paying, that only means that they don't want to deal with such lawsuits. It doesn't mean anything else. We know that news.com will try very hard to push the judge to make a decision against the company. Remember the biased judge Jackson. He admitted that he already made up his mind before the court was finished. People do not trust the judges, so they try to avoid courts. Opera might use it, but remember sooner or later opera will be fucked. Just look at many number of stupid open source applications that are doomed and desperately need corporations to support them. Opera should first fix its own browser to support the standards as much as IE 6 does.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[DavidD_CA]

Screw Google for not supporting Safari and Opera in GMail Your tagline brings up a rather ironic point. Google's GMail purposly doesn't support Safari/Opera. That was obviously a decision on their part -- maybe one that they'll change in the future when GMail takes off. So, do they need to pay Opera $12M too? Granted, you might say no because Google isn't Microsoft and didn't make the browser -- but MSN and the software division of Microsoft are quite different entities, so that arguement doesn't quite hold up. But what I don't understand -- is why is everyone blasting Microsoft for this? Mistake or not, if I'm a webmaster and I only want to code for a particular browser, or even purposly code something to screw with a browser I don't like, why can't I? It's my site, I pay for the development and hosting, who can control what I cannot do about it? For a while, the State of California locked out all non-Netscape browsers for filing tax-related documents. Bank of America did the same when they launched online banking. Should Microsoft haved sue them?

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

hkmwbz, it is quite well known that you are a slashdot idiot, your karma is a good point to that. We can't base our opinions on your stupid allegations.

Opera has no future in mobile devices. They try to put it into mobile devices, but developers don't care about opera. In fact, my company specializes on web sites designed for mobile devices primarily target pocketIE, because it is the best. The only reason opera has attraction there is that, pocketIE is working only on windows ce devices, whereas opera is trying to put it into other devices too. Also, as a typical slashdot idiots you are simply pushing an unrelated issue here. PocketIE vs Opera has nothing to do with the news mentioned in this post. Go and read the fucking article first if you didn't get it. Don't make another stupid allegation, we already know you are an idiot.

Conpiracy theories do not happen once, they tend to repeat over and over again. Since you already lied about this case, I don't think we can trust your word for it.

Informing yourself on the matter doesn't mean that you should give credit to conspiracy theories, like many slashdot idiots like yourself do. The real world is not run by slashdot idiots.

Again, your stupidity shines. You claim it repeats itself over and over, yet you don't show one single proof to support your claim. All you are saying is a lie, it doesn't repeat itself over and over and over. Opera is a shitty browser, we do not support it at all. It is absolutely stupid to support opera. MSN should completely refuse to support it.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

A little Norwegian company which poses no threat to Microsoft

1) Microsoft was once a little company that posed no threat to IBM. Big threats usually start little.

2) Anyone who has used both browsers for any significant amount of time (as I have) knows that the Opera browser is infinitely better than IE.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[emptor]

The problem with an across-the-board loser pays system, as you propose, is that there are many cases where the plaintiff has a good-faith belief that it has been wronged and therefore brings suit. This plaintiff shouldn't be deterred from bringing a justifiable suit by the penalty of treble cost damages. After all, let's say I invent some new, unobvious technique (and get my patent) that MS then incorporates into their product. I sue MS for infringement, but they, with all their money and lawyers, either litigate me out of business or use their might to sway a judge/jury. All of a sudden I'm looking at potential millions of costs.

Your proposal, IMO, would simply deter poor companies/individuals from suing.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Troed]

For about 1.5 years it was impossible to access http://www.xbox.com with Opera - it entered an infinite loop.

1.5 years.

It was fixed quite recently - server side. It wasn't a problem in Opera.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

GMail doesn't make Opera look bad on purpose, by serving it a special style sheet designed to break it. It says up-front that Opera might not work. I may not like it (actually, I think it sucks really bad), but it is Google's right to choose to do so. They are being up-front about it, which is a good thing. So GMail cannot be compared to Microsoft's actions at all.

I am sure you, too understand why Microsoft gets crap for making other browsers look bad on purpose. To quote another post of mine:

"You mean apart from the fact that MSN is used by millions upon millions of people, and that when they discover that it works fine in Internet Explorer but not in Opera, it gives the impression that it is Opera which doesn't work properly?"

Your examples aren't quite the same as Microsoft's actions against Opera. Not only is Microsoft serving bad code specifically to Opera, but they are lying about Opera to the press as well.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Doc Ruby]

$12M is cheap, for M$, to *guarantee* the results. Spending a lot of money in court, even when you're "right", doesn't guarantee that you win.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

"hkmwbz, it is quite well known that you are a slashdot idiot, your karma is a good point to that."

Ooh, the anger! Did I hit a nerve? :)

"Opera has no future in mobile devices. They try to put it into mobile devices, but developers don't care about opera."

I beg to differ. Opera is becoming a powerful mobile brand. Phone companies are actually bragging about having Nokia on their phones. Nokia is running ads showing off Opera, and as you can see, Opera even gets its own branded button!

"In fact, my company specializes on web sites designed for mobile devices primarily target pocketIE, because it is the best."

Pocket IE is not the best. It is a stripped down version of desktop IE, which basically leaves a lot to be desired. To fit it into a phone, they had to remove a lot of stuff, and you'll find plenty of problems surfing with it. Even Microsoft knows this.

"The only reason opera has attraction there is that, pocketIE is working only on windows ce devices, whereas opera is trying to put it into other devices too."

That's one of the reasons. Another is that Opera has small screen rendering, uses the exact same core on the desktop as on devices, unlike IE. And so on.

"Also, as a typical slashdot idiots you are simply pushing an unrelated issue here. PocketIE vs Opera has nothing to do with the news mentioned in this post. Go and read the fucking article first if you didn't get it. Don't make another stupid allegation, we already know you are an idiot."

Ah, but I only responded to the "Opera is no threat to Microsoft" claim, and in mentioning that, pocket IE is indeed relevant. Microsoft does not have a good enough browser, while other mobile platforms have Opera. Opera is growing in the embedded market, and that is why it could be a threat to Microsoft's entry into this market.

"Again, your stupidity shines. You claim it repeats itself over and over, yet you don't show one single proof to support your claim. All you are saying is a lie, it doesn't repeat itself over and over and over. Opera is a shitty browser, we do not support it at all. It is absolutely stupid to support opera. MSN should completely refuse to support it."

Sorry, but the issue here is not that MSN doesn't support Opera. It is that Microsoft have been serving Opera bad code to Opera, breaking sites like MSN.com and MSNBC.com, making Opera look bad. Not only that, but a Mirosoft exec started spreading blatant lies to the media about Opera.

But I already covered that in the post you responded to I guess.

Anyway, AC. Sorry, but YUO LOSE!!!!1 :)

Thanks for playing, try again.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Your proposal, IMO, would simply deter poor companies/individuals from suing.

Welcome to the GOP, friend! For future reference, the preferred term for this concept is "tort reform".

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[penpendisarapen]

Don't forget, for Microsoft it's quicker to pay $10 million and get them to go away than to even investigate. Lawyers are expensive, and if you think in every case settled 'justice' was done, you are incredibly naive. It may be quicker, but not necessarily less expensive. Microsoft employs an army of lawyers on salary. Whether or not they fight a lawsuit, they get paid the same.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[presarioD]

What is an interesting trend here on /. is that all this M$ hype gets moderated as +5 (by the buddies/coworkers I would assume?) and is presented as respectable impartial research or "a devil's advocate" argument or what not.

Very interesting. Now as a typical conspiracy theorist myself, I would dare to say that M$ actually hires people to do that on /.

See I said it! :-)

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[monkeydo]

While that page may prove[1] that MSN tweaked the pages they sent to Opera browsers it's a long way from proving that MSN committed some actionable tort and that they owe Opera damages.

[1]According to some standard of proof. It's not clear that what the Opera team considers evidence would even be admissible in court.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an admission of guilt by any stretch of the imagination.

It isn't a legal admission of guilt. Paying off molested Catholics isn't a legal admission of guilt, either. But people will draw their own conclusions.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

you so smart...we dumb.

You use "fuck" a lot too, bad bad man.

Me have proof that this is Microsoft, as the proof was in story that you, mr-call-everyone-idiot didn't bother reading.

you smart, you must be lawyer for Microsoft if you knows "it doesn't mean anything else".

We bow to you oh-smarter-than-everyone-else Anonymous Coward.

You so smart yet you know nothing about anything. You just talking bullshit yourself huh?

You use grammar like us dummies too. "The public you are talking about is the slashdot idiots. They are not public you idiot. Public is using IE out there. That's what matters." You sound like bad American Indian stereotype.

You not so smart after all.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course MS fixed it but certainly not within a few days. Sites have cached copies because this happened a year ago.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[VorpalHamster]

No no no. The proof is not in the puding. The saying is, "The proof of the puding is in the tasting." Like anyone cares, though.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[hkmwbz]

"In this instance, Opera is the evil corporation manipulating the system for its own gain."

Not at all. Opera has no history of frivolous lawsuits, and assuming that it really is Microsoft, Opera has plenty of reason to take action against MS. Not only have MS sites on several occasions specifically detected Opera and served it broken code to make it look bad, but they have been spreading blatant lies about Opera through the press.

That's right. When MS was caught with their pants down, they started coming up with lame excuses - lies - like "Opera does not support XHTML", and similar nonsense.

Opera is clearly not "the evil corporation" here. That you claim otherwise just proves that you haven't even taken the time to inform yourself of the facts before posting about the subject.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd believe it far more if you'd tried Opera's 'Bork' edition -- the one that turned msn.com into Swedish Chef-speak when viewed. Utter proof that Microsoft did it deliberately was viewing the proper version (IE only) of msn.com vs. the munted version (Opera only).

Conclusion: MS were frickin' guilty as hell and everyone knew it. No surprise there....

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Spruce Moose]

MS won't stop until we actually PUNISH them... perhaps a $20 billion fine would help?

That's not going to help. Gates will just write a cheque for $20B and that would be it. Guess who is going to have to make up that $20B? It's going to be suckers like you and me who (have to) buy Microsoft software.

The only solution is to make Microsoft distribute enough information about their protocols and file formats to allow open source and commercial competition.

The EU could have done this but they got greedy and fucked it up.

Re:This is why we hatessss them

[Anonymous Coward]

My old employer would pretty much settle automatically on any lawsuit that was for under $20,000 because it would cost that much to just get their lawyers geared up.

So, what's the name of your old company?
I want to sue it for $19,999.99.

In other news

[Phekko]

It has been confirmed that water is, indeed, wet and that it may not be necessary to pay SCO $699 to keep using Linux

Re:In other news

[PsychoSid]

Also
Bears continue to defecate in areas densely populated with trees
And sources close to the Pope continue to report that he is indeed a catholic.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, mod me down you christian extremists!

-Roofus

No Way!

[ObSean]

Microsoft repeatedly break compatability of one of their sites with another browser? Say it ain't so!

Re:No Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any other browser?

Re:No Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've always wonder why shift+click on hotmail doesn't open up new mail in a new window on opera. Maybe it is a MS thing.

I like windows, but I hate the MS's business practices.

However, I think Opera taking MS's money kinda lowers the quality of the web for users. But on the other hand, maybe Opera's not getting enough money for their software, so they couldn't pass on the money.

Whatever the case, go Opera!

Follows the trend

[lachlan76]

This is starting to happen a lot lately. Microsoft is having money taken, because they try to push the little guys around.
Hopefully they'll learn from this mistake. Probably not, if an AU$800 Million fine from the EU isn't enough to change their business practices, nothing will.

Re:Follows the trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is having money taken, because they try to push the little guys around.

No, they are not having money taken. They are paying what is owed to another company for spreading false statements of the company's product.

If the trend continues, which it most likely will, then MS will no longer be able to push the "little guys" around. In capitalism, you play fair or you get hurt.

Re:Follows the trend

[Anonymous Coward]

This all comes out of petty cash for them. They chalk it up as a cost of doing business. If it really bugs ya, don't use any of their buggy, security-hole-laden POS software.

Re:Follows the trend

[senzafine]

This all comes out of petty cash for them.

I wonder if their petty cash vault is larger than their "in case we get sued" vault.

Re:Follows the trend

[adesm]

Eight Hundred Million Australian Dollars fine? Gadzooks, have even the EUrocrats given up all faith in the stumble-bum of international currencies?

But seriously folks, the Fine which has been levied has only been done at an early stage, despite some of the premature celebrations. Microsoft will appeal, there will be massive depositions and written submissions etc. and the matter will hang around the EU's 'ahem' Competition Authority like a pair of concrete shoes for a few years.

Finally, after $SUITABLE years have elapsed, the European Council of Ministers, probably Employment Council or some such, will reduce the Fine to some EUR10m or thereabouts, after a closed-door unreportable meeting - following years of extensive lobbying of the Governments in question by Microsoft. That's how things are done in Europe, secretly, without public consultation or justification. See the recent whitewashing of the EU parliament's vote in relation to software patents as an example.

Re:Follows the trend

[eyeye]

Why did the EU fine them in australian dollars?

To rub it in by making them go to the Bureau D'change?

Re:Follows the trend

[lachlan76]

They were fined AU$800 Million for Anticompetitive behaviour. I would have said a government fine would count as money taken, not a debt to another company. Not that the fine was a bad thing of course...

Re:Follows the trend

[southpolesammy]

Actually, it's been said before, but they're not getting beat down here....they're settling all their open litigation. I'm not sure to what end this is progressing towards, but something tells me that Microsoft themselves is trying to clear all open cases against them so that they can gear up for something big.

I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...

Re:Follows the trend

[lachlan76]

Because I live in Australia, and my lack of sleep stops me from converting currency automatically. 800 Million Australian is abut 550 Million Euros

Re:Follows the trend

[lachlan76]

We can fix that - Everyone must have at least 10 hours of linux experience to be allowed to use the internet. No-one will go back after 1 hour, but let's make sure. Let's see how well Microsoft can gear up when Linux owns both the server *AND* desktop market.

Re:Follows the trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I myself would love to scoff at that monetary value as chump change, but there are two points to make.

$800AU million is chump change for MS who in the past paid a conempt of court fine of $1 billion US and an additional $1 million US per day for remaining in contempt simply to keep IE in Windows.

Also, isn't the $AU taking the place of the Italian Lira, it's like $1million AU = $500 US? hehe only kidding on this one.

Re:Follows the trend

[Spoing]

1. This is starting to happen a lot lately.

...because Microsoft want's a clean slate when they deal with the EU and other much larger threats.

What's $12 million to a company making that much profit in a few hours? Getting asked about these annoyances or having them show up as evidence is dangerous. Saying "we settled that dispute, your honor" is well worth it.

Make no mistake, Microsoft executives have not learned anything since there's nothing to learn. It's entirely intentional.

Re:Follows the trend

[rcs1000]

Err... EUR10m is $12m...

Good...

[WIAKywbfatw]

At least the one company that truly stands for browser innovation will have some more cash to spend on product development. Pity it's just a drop in the ocean to Microsoft though.

Re:Good...

[mphase]

You've insulted Mozilla, now you must die.

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and with the recent trademark rulings, they can spend the $12 mil on OPERA (c) windows, coming to a pc near you soon.

Re:Good...

[jb.hl.com]

Er...

And Mozilla doesn't innovate?

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla's open source. He did say "the one company"...

Re:Good...

[Dionysus]

what innovation?
tabed browsing, opera.
gesturing, opera.

Re:Good...

[acebone]

Find as you type : Mozilla

Besides I don't see Mozilla as an innovation project - it's about making the best damned browser there is, and it is. Innovation can come from 3rd parties in Mozilla (I'd like to see you try that with Opera)

Re:Good...

[Celvin]

And Mozilla doesn't innovate?

He didn't say that. He just said that at least one company got some more cash to continue. Saying that one party innovates is not the same as saying that another doesn't. Mozilla is great, but there must be allowed to like other things too. Even on Slashdot...

Re:Good...

[Tarpan]

Maybe in webbrowsers, but the feature has been there forever in editors. Of course you could argue that tabs and gestures have been around before Opera added them to their browser.

Re:Good...

[hkmwbz]

"Find as you type : Mozilla"

Wrong . Look for "inline find". That was in November 2001.

As cool as Mozilla is, Opera often drives the innovation. I don't understand your "3rd parties" comment either. Can anyone submit code to change things in Firefox? Or are you saying that "3rd party innovation" somehow nullifies Opera's innovations?

Re:Good...

[acebone]

OK - I don't know when it was introduced in Mozilla and you may be right, I thought it was the other way around.

Re: 3rd parties - I mean the extension system of Mozilla, Opera hasn't got anything like that. Pie menus is an extension - it was made by a 3rd party.

Re:Good...

[hkmwbz]

Right. But a lot of people prefer having everything integrated and working together towards a common goal. Firefox extensions are developed by different people, so they may not always fit so nicely together.

But extensions are a nice idea when done right.

Re:Good...

[acebone]

If you don't like an extension - don't install it ???

Re:Good...

[Darren Winsper]

Actually, he said *the* one company, implying there's only one.

Re:Good...

[hkmwbz]

I know. But I need the functionality. And Opera provides it "out of the box".

I do use both Opera and Firefox, but I definitely find myself using Opera more, as I don't have to worry about extensions and such.

Re:Good...

[stephanruby]

A couple of years ago, Opera was the most user-friendly and the most accessible browser on the market.

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Håkon Wium Lie is credited for inventing stylesheets. Before he joined Opera, but still. There sure is some capacity for innovation in the company.

Opera

[Scoria]

it may not be necessary to pay SCO $699 to keep using Linux

It's not over until the fat lady sings, you bastards.

Sincerely,

D. McBride

Re:Opera

[Grrr]

* (contingent on the negotiated definition of "not", "over", "until", "lady" and "sings". The most likely interpretation of "bastards" is left as an exercise for the reader.)

<grrr>

Opera: Bork Edition!

[thesolo]

After one of the first times Microsoft broke MSN for Opera, Opera released a Bork Edition of their browser.

"The Bork edition behaves differently on one Web site: MSN. Users accessing the MSN site will see the page transformed into the language of the famous Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show: Bork, Bork, Bork!"

Microsoft was purposely serving up broken style sheets for Opera; changing the user agent to something other that Opera would cause MSN to render correctly. For more on that, see the Opera article Why doesn't MSN work with Opera?

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the page with the IE stylesheet worked fine in all versions of Opera 6.

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[farlukar]

It also works on about:opera

Ferseeun inffurmeshun
Ferseeun 7.02
Booeeld 2658 Bork ideeshun
Pletffurm Veen32
System Veendoos XP
Jefa Soon Jefa Roonteeme-a
Infurunment ferseeun 1.4

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[QBasicer]

Isn't there an option in Opera to send a different User-Agent, therefore fooling MSN into thinking that the browser is IE?

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[Anonymous Coward]

They spent effort to serve up a stylesheet to try and render their page correctly in a broken version of Opera. Why is this considered to be evil?

You're trolling, aren't you ?

RTF link of the grandparent.

There was no such bug in Opera 6. From the article :

"Isn't this just a problem with the newly released Opera7?"

You mean, perhaps MSN had to write special versions of the page for the older Opera 6? No. Opera 6 handles the pages sent to MSIE 6 just fine.

You would also notice that the user-agent, Opera7.0 != Opera6.0 which would have allowed to distinguate between those versions

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[dangerburger]

Actually Bork Edition is what got me started with Opera. I wonder how this whole thing affected Opera's bottom line. I suspect it would have done more good than harm even sans the settlement.

Re:Opera: Bork Edition!

[Anonymous Coward]

The link is Opera propaganda. It was acutally Opera 5 with the bug -- Basically Microsoft got sued for half-supporting Opera, when they should have just ignored it.

The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Max Romantschuk]

Microsoft business practices aside, I really, really hate the fact that IE development is at a standstill. Microsoft has said they won't release a new IE until Longhorn.

Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.

Amusingly there's a work-around under development called IE7, mentioned on Slashdot a while back.

But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[October_30th]

But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?

If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[The-Bus]

The worst part? I think it's good news. If this is really true it gives Firefox a long time to catch up (market share wise). I've been using it for a couple of months and can't help but recommend it to everyone I know. It's a lot more stable, the tabbing system is wonderful, and you've got these customizable UIs that people used to using AOL IM and WinAmp should love.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.

It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.

But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

Some parts of CSS 2 work in Internet Explorer. Most of PNG works in Internet Explorer (just the alpha channel is broken, and there are limited workarounds). SVG isn't supported in the normal builds of Mozilla, Konquerer, Safari or Opera, so you can't really blame Microsoft for not supporting it either.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[magefile]

Yeah, and if people cared about spam prevention or antivirus, they could buy or download software to do something about that too. Doesn't change the fact that I get paid 10-20 bucks for less than an hour's work buying and installing Norton for people.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.

No, it's not all we need. We need PNG for images with an actual 8-bit alpha plane. We need SVG for inlinable vector graphics (which gives us copyable text from images, for starters!)

People are in fact already using these. It's just that a lot of people don't really know about them, or that they are feasible (SVG more than PNG, PNG is actually taking off web-wise). But if viewing them is such a hassle that it's not worth it for websites to employ them, well, employment, and development, stagnates. That's the problem.

My suggestion: ignore IE and build for compliant browsers. Then you can tell visitors to upgrade, or offer them a choice if they are "still using IE". Note: not really recommended for businesses.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Max Romantschuk]

Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?

If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.

Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.

The average person is not that intelligent. I'm not saying the average person is stupid, but never the less. It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.

Furthermore, many people browse at public libraries or similar places where installing software isn't an option.

Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.

If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.

As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Max Romantschuk]

It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.

Web standards aren't just about writing valid markup. IE forces you to do workarounds which result in code which is bad practice from a semantic viewpoint.

Another problem is the fact that due to IE's limitations making things work takes orders of magnitude longer than it otherwise would.

SVG isn't supported in the normal builds of Mozilla, Konquerer, Safari or Opera, so you can't really blame Microsoft for not supporting it either.

If IE supported SVG we'd have a 90% installed used base for SVG support. I'll bet anyone a million bucks that SVG would have catched on by now if IE had supported it for a couple of years.

And it IE supported SVG I'd bet would be of higher priority for other browsers too.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

This stuff, as a web developer, makes me kinda cranky. It's like, wee! i can do all kinds of fancy stuff (not fancy as in bloat, fancy as in streamlined and shiny) but hangon... looks like it won't work in ie... okay cut it all out since 90% clients are in ie. it's just another depressing factor in a loveless job...

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[SnowWolf2003]

If the majority of web sites start adopting these standards first, the browsers will have to change to support them, not the other way around. Remember how IE got so prominent in the first place (apart from being integrated into the OS), is all those sites that had best viewed with Internet Explorer. So change the game on Microsoft and the mindset of the general public. If enough sites have Best Viewed with Firefox, Opera, etc. (and that is indeed true) then people will start realising that Internet Explorer has fallen behind the progress of the web and it is time to change to a browser that hasn't. It will also bring Firefox et al to the attention of the general public, most of whom haven't even heard of these other browsers. All they know as competition to IE is Netscape Navigator, again because of all those best viewed in Netscape Navigator.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

IE forces you to do workarounds which result in code which is bad practice from a semantic viewpoint.

Please elaborate. The only thing that I can think of that you might be referring to are superfluous <div> and <span> elements, and since they are simply generic, meaningless element types, there is no real harm to include more than necessary.

Another problem is the fact that due to IE's limitations making things work takes orders of magnitude longer than it otherwise would.

This I agree with. I spend half my development time developing a design that works in Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, etc, and the other half including workarounds for Internet Explorer bugs.

If IE supported SVG we'd have a 90% installed used base for SVG support. [...] And it IE supported SVG I'd bet would be of higher priority for other browsers too.

I'm sorry, but I can't criticise Microsoft for not implementing something when nobody else does it either.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[garcia]

But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.

Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course IE development has stalled, just look at the user-agent string. "Mozilla/4.0"! It's a customized version of Netscape 4, with "Compatible" and "MSIE 6.0" in the customization strings. They couldn't even figure out how to change the browser part of the user-agent string to say MSIE.

After Netscape 4.0, the browser was released as open source, and we all know how much Microsoft hates Open Source, so they couldn't just take the new version and customize it. So, if they want to change anything, they need to develop their own browser, which will take a lot of time. Hopefully, they use this opportunity to not copy all the errors from Netscape 4, that Internet Explorer has, instead making it possible to use the new rewritten MSIE to browse sites that follow HTML standards.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[sfe_software]

Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.

I agree with all but the intelligent part. It's not that people aren't intelligent, it's more that they have little or no interest in learning that much about computers. For those of us where computers are a large part of our lives and/or careers, these things seem obvious, just like a doctor might think some complex medical procedure is obvious...

It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.

That's a much better spin on it that I can agree with fully. Just remember, skills != intelligence. Nor does lack of motivation imply lack of intelligence; lack of interest perhaps...

Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.

I do that myself, but in my case most times the page was designed for IE exclusively or requires flash, whereas I use Mozilla w/o the flash plugin. These days I find much less rendering problems, either because sites are more compliant (doubtful) or because Mozilla and IE interpret buggy/incomplete code in similar ways...

If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.

Agreed fully. IE has, in my opinion, stagnated since version 5 or so, and no major feature enhancements (that I would use anyway) since 4.0. I forget which version implemented Microsoft's idea of CSS2 support, but in any case it's still not complete. Plus it lacks so many useful features that most other browsers have (disallowing unrequested popups, tabbed interface, etc)...

As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)

Standard and simple technologies are sufficient for many purposes, but in general I agree that we shouldn't be stuck with 1998 technologies. I like knowing that I can use certain advanced features, but in more than one case I've had to pull a cool CSS trick out of a page after finding out that IE doesn't support it (or doesn't support it properly). Often the work-around is to re-implement it using JavaScript, which isn't worth the effort IMO.

Just look at the new features we've gained over the last five years (that are actually being used). Then look at the five years prior to that (1994 to 1999) and you'll notice that things have stagnated around the time IE became stagnant. Granted we're still seeing many technologies becoming more widely used (eg, CSS), but only because the market generally has to catch up. By the time we get anything new (at the mercy of Microsoft most likely), we'll see actual development stagnate for a while, while we wait for the new tech to mature, and for there to be enough users with a newer browser...

At least that's my opinion, based on observation... however I do feel that HTML/CSS is currently pretty darned flexible if you learn the right tricks; it could be worse (it's not like we're stuck with plain ASCII text).

In summary, I fully agree with you and wanted to comment on a few points, and to point out that I don't feel that it's lack of intelligence, but rather specific knowledge that many users don't care to know (nor should they have to, ideally). Computers are tools to most people...

I do believe you used intelligence unintentionally to mean knowledge, as the other points in your post seem to agree.

Oh, and I hate PDF. More specifically, the idea (portability) is great, they print nice, but I cannot stand the Acrobat viewer (I wonder if there's another Windows viewer out there somewhere...)

(I really should get to bed soon; I noticed I'm rambling quite a bit here...)

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Patik]

Most of PNG works in Internet Explorer (just the alpha channel is broken, and there are limited workarounds)

Sleight isn't exactly what I'd call "limiting."

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Ender Ryan]

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG

Then you are a complete idiot and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Proper CSS2 allows at least 75% bandwidth savings serving up html, quicker rendering, easy user customizability, nicer / easier degradation, separation of content and design, etc. PNG would actually make the web much prettier, give more freedom to artists, save bandwidth in many ways, etc.

Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?

Are you insane? Why would MS need to "take Shockwave over" to do that, and what do you even mean by that? And isn't Flash usually already installed on most new machines anyway? What has that got to do with anything!?

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[StrawberryFrog]

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG

You haven't noticed the need because nobody uses them. Nobody uses them because IE doesn't support them.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG

CSS 2 is needed for presentation. The alternative is hideous presentational HTML, which is limiting in all sorts of different ways.

PNG is needed because it's the only widespread (in web terms) image format that includes an alpha channel, without which is impossible or very difficult to create many nice visual effects on websites.

SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

By that reasoning, Microsoft should just implement HTML and leave JPEG, GIF, PNG, CSS, Javascript etc support up to everyone else. Vector graphics are incredibly useful and they should be implemented in the browser.

How many websites out there use it?

Who is going to use it when virtually nobody will see it? Browser support has to come first.

Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.

Then you clearly aren't familiar with SVG or possibly web development. Vector graphics would improve plenty of websites.

Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it

First of all, who is talking about forcing anybody to do anything?

Microsoft should implement established specifications that other browser vendors have implemented so that Internet Explorer's large market share doesn't cripple web development. Right now, the primary problem is CSS 2 support, but next year it will probably be SVG support.

you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so

Who is the "you all" you are talking to?

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[TheRaven64]

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

CSS2 makes web design a whole lot easier. You can properly separate content and presentation. Have the content generated in semantic markup by a script and then just change the CSS when you need to change the presentation.

PNG is a nice lossless image format. It is more flexible than GIF and is not encumbered by patents (The GIF patent is still valid in some countries). In a browser that properly supports it, PNG allows a full alpha channel, which makes it possible to do some very nice effects.

One of the best things about SVG is that it's XML, and so is part of you pages DOM. You can put the SVG directly into XHTML, and even control it from Javascript (or any other scripting mechanism that supports DOM). This makes it an incredibly flexible tool. If you render SVG using the Adobe plugin then the SVG content does not appear within the DOM tree.

How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.

No, most websites don't use it because if they did then IE users would not be able to view their site.

Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?

No. Flash is proprietary. CSS2 and SVG, however, are W3C standards and should be supported by any browser.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

It requires Javascript.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[yason]

I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

Because SVG can be embed into XHTML directly. SVG is not only yet another vector graphics format, it's a language for describing vector graphics within the document's markup. It's similar to MathML in concept, just that it's graphics primitives that you can use in documents and script them like any DOM elements. So, a plugin greatly limits the power of SVG.

Get a Mozilla SVG build and try it out with some sample documents (Mozilla's SVG is incomplete and buggy, but you'll get the idea).

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Feanturi]

For those of us where computers are a large part of our lives and/or careers, these things seem obvious, just like a doctor might think some complex medical procedure is obvious...

Totally.. Even after all these years, I'm still taken aback when I do something simple and 'obvious' to somebody's computer and they go into genius-worshipping mode. They might ask something like, "How did you know to do that??" to which I may not have a ready response, because my first impulse is to wonder why it's so arcane to them. Or if I can see how it's not obvious to them, it can still be something really easy to find if they would only have read the dialog box that's been popping up in front of them every morning for the past year.. I guess it's all about inclination.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Bullseye_blam]

Product stagnation: this is the definition of a monopoly.

Microsoft cannot benefit from dumping more money into IE; they already have 90% marketshare. This in turn happens to be good for Microsoft, but hurts the consumers (because most users will simply stick with their current browser, even if better ones are available).

And on top of that, Microsoft is trying to squish these competitors!

Can you imagine what browsers would look like now if Microsoft hadn't gained a monopoly? They'd be better than the current Opera, even. And IE would be forced to have:

- a pop-up blocker (oooh, it's coming kids!)
- full png support
- tabbed browsing
- cached browsing that moves quicker than a sloth
- mouse gestures

I could go on and on.

monopoly = bad for new development, since the monoplizer has NO INCENTIVE to innovate.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Reziac]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859 -1&q=%22alternative+to+acrobat+reader%22

Apparently there are some, GhostView and xpdf among the first links I see. No idea if they're actually better.. should look, since I share your dislike for the Acrobat Reader. (Using the full version to read PDFs is a little better, but not much.) Then again, I don't like how any Adobe product handles the UI, so ... :)

As to browsers, I use an antique by *preference* (NS3.04, believe it or not) and only drag out Mozilla when some site refuses to play at all. CSS has been in some ways nice because when done properly, it makes a site render as essentially plain text in my preferred browser. -- Accessability after all is not about making things accessable only in the latest and greatest, but in making it useable in whatever people are really using, whether that use is by option or necessity.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Apathetic1]

Furthermore, many people browse at public libraries or similar places where installing software isn't an option.

So lobby the head librarian. Put together a list of all the reasons they shouldn't be using Internet Explorer (spyware's a really good one to mention, as are popup ads). Mention all the cool features that your FOSS browser of choice has. Include a CD with the latest stable versions.

My mother works at a library and she forwarded my letter to the person in charge who read it, considered it and rejected it. Now I hear three months later they may be putting Firefox on all the computers because they've heard about problems the users are having with spyware.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[black mariah]

FUcking Christ in a blender I'm tired of this stuck-up, self-aggrandizing, masturbatory horseshit.

People are not stupid. They just don't fucking care. Most people have a life that exists beyond their monitor. As long as they can check their email and go to the few sites they frequent, THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT THEY ARE USING. They don't give a fuck about standards, they don't give a fuck about MS being 'evil', they don't give a fuck about any of this stupid fucking bullshit you moronic fucking geek.

If people are too stupid to install shit, then how the fuck do you think Flash got so popular? Hey, that's right! When they go to a site that uses it and they don't have it, THEY FUCKING INSTALL IT.

Since you're too damn biased to notice, IE isn't the only non-standards compliant browser out there. In fact, I'm not sure there is a SINGLE browser that is fully standards compliant.

On a slightly different note, when did PDF go from being the devil to being accepted? I thought PDF was horrible because... like... it was made by Adobe and stuff... and they're bad. Or something. *COUGH*

Meh, whatever.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[danielsfca2]

If you used a Mac, you would love PDF. Preview.

;-)

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are too stupid to install shit, then how the fuck do you think Flash got so popular?

Microsoft started bundling it with Internet Explorer downloads beginning with Internet Explorer 4.0.

Since you're too damn biased to notice, IE isn't the only non-standards compliant browser out there. In fact, I'm not sure there is a SINGLE browser that is fully standards compliant.

There's a difference between getting 99% of the specification implemented, and doing a half-assed job. Oh, and Microsoft co-authored the HTML and CSS standards.

Re:The worst part is IE development has stalled.

[Max Romantschuk]

I realize my choice of words was far from optimal, I guess that's what you get when you post in a hurry.

I do believe that intelligence affects the motivation to solve problems or care about them in the first place. That being said, the whole intelligence claim should probably have been left out of my comment.

People are not stupid. They just don't fucking care. Most people have a life that exists beyond their monitor. As long as they can check their email and go to the few sites they frequent, THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT THEY ARE USING. They don't give a fuck about standards, they don't give a fuck about MS being 'evil', they don't give a fuck about any of this stupid fucking bullshit you moronic fucking geek.

This is true, but your assumption that I am a moronic fucking geek is invalid.

If people are too stupid to install shit, then how the fuck do you think Flash got so popular? Hey, that's right! When they go to a site that uses it and they don't have it, THEY FUCKING INSTALL IT.

Some do, some dont. But the popularity of Flash was largely fueled by two factors: It came pre-installed in the browser with most ISP installer CD's, and the early Flash players were a very small download (downloading it was wicked fast.)

Since you're too damn biased to notice, IE isn't the only non-standards compliant browser out there. In fact, I'm not sure there is a SINGLE browser that is fully standards compliant.

You completely and totally missed my point. I'm not after a fully standards compliant browser, nor am I saying we should all make standards compiant web sites.

My point was: the fact that IE isn't being developed causes a situation where progress in the web development world has largely stalled.

But you're right about there not being any standards compiant browsers out there at the moment. I suspect there never will be a browser which implements even just HTML and CSS2 without any quirks.

As a sidenote I'd like to point out that your rather liberal use of the word 'fuck' might be considered offensive by some.

Microsoft Sends Broken Stylesheets to Opera

[Tribbin]

To fresh up your mind:
Here

Re:Microsoft Sends Broken Stylesheets to Opera

[acebone]

Thats wrong buddy - Opera6 showed the MSN page with the IE stylesheet just fine.

Re:Microsoft Sends Broken Stylesheets to Opera

[Tribbin]

My bad,

I just searched the archives because I remembered something about it.

Re:This would appear to be...

[fuzzix]

What's $12M to a company with billions and billions of cash?

Not much, but it means quite a bit to Opera I would wager. If you were to view this settlement as an admission of guilt (a safe assumption in this case?) this means more than the $12M to both parties.

So, they got their come-upence..

[robslimo]

For a small company like Opera, the settlement is significant, I'd imagine. Not only did they get their main beef settled, they get a little cash infusion to boot.

But these snippets from the article

The deal marks the latest in a string of settlements from Microsoft, which is seeking to simplify its business by clearing up potentially damaging legal claims.

and

Microsoft has effectively abandoned significant browser development efforts.

make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight? Why should they make an effort to clean up their legal image when it didn't seem to phase them for such a long time?

I don't doubt that whatever they've got planned, history indicates it's probably part of a well thought out business or marketing plan. Other thoughts?

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? One thing you can be sure of, with all the major changes they are planning for Longhorn, it will be another buggy security-hole-laden POS!

What new treats will they provide for spammers and script-kiddies? With an army of programmers and $billions in the bank the one thing Microsoft has never thought of is competing on merit! Quality is job none!

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[EnglishTim]

They will be completely integrating the browser with the operating system. If I understand it correctly, their 'Avalon' project will join the split between web and native applications. This means that applications written for this new version of Windows will look and feel exactly the same regardless of whether they are running on your local machine, or being run from a 'web server', or some mixture of the two.

That's where they're concentrating their energy, and the system is likely to be so intertwined with Windows APIs that it'll be very difficult to get anything running on another platform.

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[zeugma-amp]

make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? (Other than continued 'integration' with their operating systems.) They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight? Why should they make an effort to clean up their legal image when it didn't seem to phase them for such a long time?

They don't have anything up their sleeves. Microsoft saw Netscape (and other browsers in general) as a threat because of the hype surrounding concepts of the 'browser being the platform'. They feared (rightly) that if true system independence were to come about due to people using a browser as their portal to software, that their windows monopoly would be threatened in some way.

When microsoft sees a threat, no matter how small to it's cash cow of windows, it reacts violently. Now that they feel (again probably rightly) that browsers are not a threat to them, they won't waste a moment of a programmer's time to fix IE defects because they understand that it no longer matters. The majority of uninformed users will continue to use IE no matter how ancient and clunky it gets compared to other browsers out there because the vast majority don't have any idea that Mozilla or Opera even exist, much less how massively superior to microsoft's offerings they are.

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[KjetilK]

But these snippets from the article

The deal marks the latest in a string of settlements from Microsoft,

Just to comment on it: I didn't see much evidence in the article it really was MS behind this, but I agree that it is hard to see any others settle for something howcome would feel so strongly for.

what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve?

In my post a few days ago I argued that the browser as we know it is going to be rather irrelevant some day. It's not going to be a standalone application. It's going to be something that runs your applications across the net. I think that is the reality we would be looking at, but I also think that the free software community actually closer than MS to achieve this...

When MS go "there will be no difference between the machine and the net" I go "you mean like there really is no difference between localhost and other hosts?".

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[bwalling]

make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight? Why should they make an effort to clean up their legal image when it didn't seem to phase them for such a long time?

They don't need to fight. They haven't updated IE in a while, and the usage numbers haven't significantly changed.

As for what's up their sleeves? Longhorn will include XAML, which Microsoft will undoubtedly try to use to blur the lines between the OS and the browser. XAML websites will have a richer user interface, leaving "vanilla" HTML/XHTML sites looking inferior. Imagine what happens to Mozilla when a significant number of major sites start serving up XAML pages along side of current content.

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[jwegy]

They're referring to longhorn as two pieces: client and server. They have a new markup language called XAML which provides a rich UI tied to a server backend. They've pushed for mozilla developers to embrace said XAML. They've pushed subscription based software. I see where this might be going: You need microsoft office? easy, go to xttp://office.microsoft.com. You need a passport login. Setup is only $10 per month

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[dghcasp]

Microsoft has effectively abandoned significant browser development efforts.

make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight?

They already won. As much as we argue the point, Mozilla, Netscape, and Opera only have marginal market share and most people either (a) can't be bothered to switch, or (b) aren't technical/leading edge/interested in looking (or even being aware) of alternatives.

Despite their effectively infinite cash, Microsoft still has limited resources (people,) and butressing a battle they've already won isn't the most effective use of their resources at this time.

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[Xiph]

And where does microsoft see a threat now?
on security, what do they do, bundle a firewall. Is their firewall good and flexible? no, will it reduce the sale of other firewalls, you bet it will. What microsoft want isn't just their OS they want you to have the os bundled with all the rest of the stuff they make, so you have to do something actively to avoid the microsoft taxes.

oh, and time for a rant:
Their's no point in hurting anyone with legal suits, the only real way of dealing with annoying business is hurting their business model.
make hiring spammers illegal.

Re:So, they got their come-upence..

[earlgreen]

The majority of uninformed users will continue to use IE no matter how ancient and clunky it gets compared to other browsers out there because the vast majority don't have any idea that Mozilla or Opera even exist, much less how massively superior to microsoft's offerings they are.

Yea, and as long as the vast majority is running broken crap, it's hard to create websites that actually take advantage of features like for example alpha transparent images (PNGs w/ variable opacity). Freakin' heck!.

Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see opera getting some funding. It has never bothered me that opera displayed msn wrongly, tho it was obvious there was something going on with those style sheets

Microsoft Settling More Often

[Bill Dimm]

As this article in BusinessWeek points out, Microsoft is trying to settle and partner rather than fight in court.

Re:Microsoft Settling More Often

[peragrin]

Just the oposite of IBM's strategy for dealing with small companies. Crush and make an example of them. Oh wait IBM has traded it's secretive ways(almost) for honesty and Open Standards. If Microsoft switches what will we do then?

Not a good thing?

[Monoman]

Settlements like this should not be kept secret. Even more so when publicly held companies are involved ... and fo damn sure when one of the companies has been found guilty of predatory practices.

Maybe MS's sentence should have included banning them from private deals and settlements.

Windows Update

[Ann Elk]

Does this mean that Mozilla can now sue Microsoft because Windows Update only works with IE >= 5? When I try to access Windows Update using Mozilla 1.6, I get the following:

You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.

Download the latest version of Internet Explorer

Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.

If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center.

I suppose the last sentence is some concession to those of us who run non-IE browsers. However, the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...

Re:Windows Update

[sudohnim]

Mozilla cannot sue simply because the browser does not support ActiveX. If someone bothered to implement ActiveX in Moz, then they might have an arguement.

Re:Windows Update

[MoonBuggy]

No, that's a different thing entirely. Windows Update uses ActiveX controls to work out what you need and those are only compatible with IE, as I'm sure you know. There's no legal precident saying they must rewrite code if another browser doesn't support it.

What they did to Opera was deliberately send broken code in order to make it appear that the browser was faulty. The code sent to IE worked fine in Opera but MS went out of their way to alter that code when sending it to Opera. If you went to MSN using a IE5 browser agent string in Opera it would've worked fine. If you went to Windows Update using that same browser agent string in Mozilla you wouldn't get an error but I very much doubt that the site would work.

Re:Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...

Yeah, because the Microsoft Download Center doesn't know what software you're running. One of the first things Windows Update does is upload a list of what software you have for checking against a list (or it may receive a list of software that needs to be updated, check what you have and report back just that). This upload of a list of what you have, while necessary so that you can get a list of the updates you need, a feature that many people including you yourself ask for, is what causes the tinfoil hat brigade to say that Windows Update is "spyware".

Re:Windows Update

[Phekko]

I'm pretty sure Gentoo Linux servers don't know what software I'm running, either, but still somehow I seem to be able to update my system without downloading everything. I guess this must be because Windows Update is better because of, uhm... I give up, you tell me.

Re:Windows Update

[peragrin]

That's because Windows Update uses those "security holes" in IE to pass the required information back and forth. Can you imagine MS accendently publishing a patch that broke Windows update by fixing a security hole in IE. How long would we laugh?

Re:Windows Update

[Ann Elk]

One could argue (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that depending on ActiveX controls is also "...deliberately sending broken code".

My point: Microsoft has been forced to open up their browser interfaces (to make it easier to run "competing" browsers, etc). Given that, it is inappropriate for Windows Update to require IE.

Re:Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

... the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...

Apparently, you haven't heard of the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer, which tells you exactly which updates you need. In fact, it tells you more than Windows Update can.

Re:Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, I'm glad Mozilla and Opera do not accept active x controls. The day I did away with active X was the day I was able to browse freely again.

Don't pollute alternative browsers.

Re:Windows Update

[MoonBuggy]

Depends how you look at I guess. I don't see this case as forcing them to 'open up', IMO it's only forcing them not to go out of their way to break things that otherwise worked. Maybe they should be forced to open their interface, but they haven't yet and this case doesn't appear to change things. On the subject of forcing them to do things, this may not even set a precident. It could simply be classed as defamation since they tried to discredit a competitor's product when it did infact work fine.

Re:Windows Update

[Ender Ryan]

I think I agree with you, only because "Windows Update" shouldn't require a browser at all. It requires "ActiveX" so it can run some code, but why is that code tied to the browser in the first place?

Stupid, and obviously part of their attempts to make the web Windows®-only.

Re:Windows Update

[Val314]

> If you went to Windows Update using that same browser agent string in Mozilla you wouldn't get an error but I very much doubt that the site would work.

There is an error message when use windowsupdate with Firefox

"Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.
Download the latest version of Internet Explorer
Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.
If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center."

If you change the Name to MSIE you get throug, but since Mozilla doesnt support ActiveX it still doesnt work

Re:Windows Update

[MoonBuggy]

That's exactly what I said in the grandparent post: if you change the browser agent to MSIE you will get through without the error message but the site won't work.

Re:Windows Update

[Reziac]

I'll take that challenge :) Using Moz with UA set to IE6, the Windows update site displays blank, presumably because it's all ActiveX from the gitgo. When I changed back to Real UA, it gave me the page referenced above. Which means it's going out of its way to offer me an alternative. There's nothing that says M$ HAS to make updates available to users of other browsers, let alone make it convenient for them.

And in the previous /. discussion, it came out that CSS handling in a *beta* of Opera7 was broken in just such a way as to need the CSS tweak, which in turn broke MSN in the *release* version of Opera7.

So however underhanded M$ may be, this appears to be nothing more than "webmaster made the mistake of catering to beta software, and didn't get around to doing a timely update when a release version came out" rather than "deliberately broke it". After all, the site still worked in every other version of Opera (including, I gather, the broken beta). Why lock out just ONE version of Opera which as yet did not have wide adoption, even among Opera fans and embedded partners? And why doesn't it affect Opera versions after that one?

Yes, I've seen M$ try to lock other browsers out of their site -- for a while their front page didn't work at all in anything but IE, and you had to know some internal link to get anywhere. But there's no logic in picking on ONE version of ONE browser, even if it's a direct competitor in a market M$ wants to gobble up. That would be like locking out Netscape 4.50, but allowing all previous and later NS versions to still work, along with every other oddball browser in the world. It doesn't make any sense even from a position of *trying* to damage the competition.

Re:Windows Update

[black mariah]

That would be like locking out Netscape 4.50, but allowing all previous and later NS versions to still work, along with every other oddball browser in the world. It doesn't make any sense even from a position of *trying* to damage the competition.

Ys, but that's a sensible and well thought-out argument, and we can't have those on Slashdot.

Re:Windows Update

[Reziac]

Whoops, my bad!!

[claps tinfoil hat back on, nails it down]

There, now I won't stand out. ;)

Far be it from me to defend Microsoft but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... they are really *not* at fault here, not by any reasonable standard.

For explanation, see here.

Re:Far be it from me to defend Microsoft but...

[REBloomfield]

wow, well, that's interesting. But it's obviously not that interesting, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be coughing up, would they?

Re:Far be it from me to defend Microsoft but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me your point was refuted.

Why would M$ care.

[edwilli]

When Microsoft gives their browser away for free. Why would they care which one you use to view their web site. I know the problem is real, I experienced it myself.

Settling is not the same as admitting guilt, which would have been mush more satisfying.

Re:Why would M$ care.

[eggoeater]

I think you have the logic backwards. They care who is using their browser so MUCH that they were willing to give it away. They care so MUCH that they included the browser with the OS.
The more people who use their browser, the more people they can influence/control how they browse the web.

It is unfortunate....

[tiger99]

.... that Opera did not persue this one through the cours, as it would have alerted the courts to the fact that the Criminal Monopoly is continuing to ignore earlier judgments. That is contempt of court.

Nothing short of criminal prosecution, and jail sentences for Gates, Ballmer and a few others, will ever make these guys behave properly. They have a consistent track record.

Re:It is unfortunate....

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unfortunate that you seem to think that this should not be a civil matter and taken to the criminal justice system. I'll bet you're one of those types that thinks that if some one makes the punishemnet bad enough, then no one will want to commit the crime. and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth so to speak?

you are an idiot. They just havent been hit with a monetary penalty big enough to for them to care. if you cheat the government out of 30k in taxes, and the penalty for this is 5k, are you really going to stop? fuck no, why would you? but if the penalty was 60k, then you would stop, because it is not economically viable. when you cheat the government out of taxes, they dont come and poke your eye out.

And where did you earn your law degree anyway? commiting a crime that you have previously been convicted for is not contemp of court, it is commiting another crime. please, there are enough people that spew bullshit about their all encompassing knowledge of the law here, even though they have never set foot into a class that actually teaches law.

so please, until you have the facts straight, dont waste my time by posting ignorant remarks to this forum.

an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind -- Ghandi

Re:It is unfortunate....

[RaymondRuptime]

If there is a court order against them, and they violate it, then yes, that could be contempt. However, if an allegation has been adjudicated, and the company found guilty, then the matter is concluded, and new charges would need to be filed. There is a difference between violating a court's order and violating a law.

Also, just because the parties have settled a civil matter doesn't mean that the DOJ cannot use evidence from the civil matter to construct a criminal contempt case. The DOJ doesn't have to wait to see if a party is found to be at fault before filing their own charges, and they can subpoena the evidence whether or not it was used in open court.

Further, just because the parties are subject to a gag order doesn't mean that the DOJ can't act on something it reads in the newspaper. Maybe AG Ashcroft reads Slashdot? :-)

Re:It is unfortunate....

[tiger99]

I think their continuing conduct is contrary to the court orders relating to the Monopoly trial, but as IANAL, and you seem to be, or know a lot more about it, I will defer to your opinion.

But I do think that they are making the entire legal system, if not the entire world, look like fools, and urgently need to be taught a very serious lesson.

Reinvent a company

[octal666]

The question now is this money is enough, if not for Microsoft to be punished, at least for Opera to repair the damage done.

Is 12M$ enough money for a company like Opera to reinvent themselves?

With the IE as the widespread browser, and with that money to take a break, IMHO Opera should think about opening other branches, maybe give a try to open source solutions.

Re:Reinvent a company

[hal2814]

12M$ is probably enough for the people running Opera to get out of the browser business and retire.

And this is a suprise to anyone at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is having to pay out all the time. They always have since their inception. Can anyone count the number of settlements that have gone against MS? (Read, MS paid out) relative to the number that have favored MS?

I'm happy for Opera, but this really is just business as usual for MS.

Nice job US DOJ, you really reined them in.

Ciao, Opera Users

[The Ape With No Name]

Microsoft is trying to settle and partner rather than fight in court.

Bye Bye, Opera. I am sure Microsoft has a couple of hitters from Jersey waiting in an alley for Opera. They'll cut it into 6 equal parts. It's easier to carry that way. Then they'll find a pig farm. Beware of men who own pig farms.

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. Whack. Whack. Whack.

PS. My apologies to the late, great Bricktop.

The new business model

[EaterOfDog]

1 Write good software
2 Wait for MIcrosoft to steal it or disable it
3 Profit!

Scuse me?

[KamuSan]

If I borrow and crash your car and I kill a horse (or something), and I have to repay you the worth of the car, and you accept my money, you also accept that you are responsible for crashing the car? That's nice, then you can help me repaying the cost of the horse.

Re:Scuse me?

[damballah]

The money is nice, but I don't see MS apologizing for damages. I'm not even sure if the made the page compliant. It just looks like MS wants Opera to shut up, so they tell them: "go fetch this $12 mil bone".

Re:Scuse me?

[Ender Ryan]

Whether this does any good, other than a damaged MS competitor getting a small cash infusion, remains to be seen. Opera is a business, in the pursuit of money, so a "$12 mil bone" is surely a positive thing for them.

You're comment about Opera being "as responsible as MS" is asbolutely devoid of any logical reasoning.

Re:Scuse me?

[damballah]

""$12 mil bone" is surely a positive thing for them." That sure remains to be seen. Embrace, extend, and exterminate is the MS way. This is just a variation on the theme.

Re:Scuse me?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

If I borrow and crash your car and I kill a horse (or something), and I have to repay you the worth of the car, and you accept my money, you also accept that you are responsible for crashing the car?

That wasn't the OP point. You borrow my car,crash it and do damage to other folk's property. I can call the cops and have you punished. You offer me money (of which you have *plenty*) to forget the whole thing. I say, "OK", and you get off easy.

As a practical matter, this may be the best thing, but it makes *me* look complicit. Still, if I weren't to accept your offer, I might have to spend years and a small fortune to see true justice. And I might lose.

Re:Scuse me?

[Ender Ryan]

What on earth are you going on about? Cash on hand is always good for a business. Opera made a decision to take the money instead of exhausting more resources attacking MS publicly, in what would probably end up being a complete waste of effort.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Opera can continue to be innovative enough to stay in the market, and considering their growing reach into the handheld market, where they're kicking the shit out of MS, it seems likely.

Embrace, extend, and exterminate is the MS way. This is just a variation on the theme.

HOW!? MS settled with Opera because it was cheaper than paying lawyers and PR folk to combat them. Opera took the settlement because doing otherwise would be futile, and $12M is always nice to have.

How does that have ANYTHING to do with "embracing and extending," and why is Opera just as responsible?

You make no sense! :P

You leave out certain important facts...

[hkmwbz]

You forget to mention that this isn't just one episode. This is something which has happened several times, and one Microsoft exec even started talking about "Opera's lack of standards compliance", claiming that it didn't support XHTML, CSS, and so on.

If this is really Microsoft, why does everyone assume that this is about a single episode with a single site, rather than a pattern, when MS has been doing this for a long time? Or just the fact that a Microsoft spokesperson used the media to spread several blatant lies about Opera (the alleged lack of XHTML support, as well as other things)?

The comment you are linking to isn't really relevant since Microsoft haven't done this kind of thing against Opera only once. They have done it several times, and have also been spreading lies about Opera.

Maybe you should keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions.

Re:You leave out certain important facts...

[will_die]

Microsoft would of needed some really stupid lawyers if this payment(provided it was from microsoft) did not include all past occurances.
The opera being required to keep silent and being paid out of court, indicates that that they wanted to keep it silent, and you do this if thier are multiple occurances that could bit you back.

Legal != moral

[KamuSan]

Alas....

Patenting the hell out of everything is hardly moral and just as childish.

Re:Opera's finances?

[Anonymous Coward]

What spyware? They display ad banners. Oh, and Google AdSense [name?] text ads. You're not bashing Google, are you? Are you?

Didn't MS claim it was a coding error?

[gadders]

I wonder what happened to the dev that was responsible for that $12.5 cock-up...

Re:Didn't MS claim it was a coding error?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was promoted!

Re:Didn't MS claim it was a coding error?

[Bombcar]

According to rumor, in the early days of Microsoft, a new salesman screwed up and lost a $1 million deal.

He went into Bill Gates' office and said, "I guess I'm fired, right?"

Bill said, "You just had a $1 million lesson in sales, and you think we'd let a competitor get the benefit from it? Don't let it happen again."

But we can't trust Bill Gatese.cx, so you never know......

Misleading article quoting "mystery source".

[hkmwbz]

I am not impressed by the quality of CNET's journalism. Here's what they have to say about why they state this as fact, instead of using language like "it looks like" or "we have reason to believe":

"a source indicated that the payment came from Microsoft in order to close the books on a clash over obscure interoperability problems"

I couldn't find any information about who this "source" is supposed to be in the article. So they are basically portraying someone's assumptions as fact. Bad journalism.

But this is not the only case of bad journalism. Another example:

"Opera is looking to move past the PC to distribute its Web browser on devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants

This is just wrong. Opera isn't just "looking to move past the PC". They have been doing this for years. Just a quick look on opera.com shows press releases about this back in 2000. In 2001, the Sharp Zaurus had Opera on it.

Now, I am not saying that it cannot possibly be Microsoft. It probably is. But this is pure speculation, and CNET is portraying it as fact. And they seem to focus on one single site, rather than the on-going problems with Opera and Microsoft sites due to browser sniffing and singling out Opera, and Microsoft's blatant lies about Opera in the press.

Re:Misleading article quoting "mystery source".

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can find their "source" here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/18/132256 &mode=thread&tid=187&tid=98&tid=99

For those who RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

"IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards, because Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.

Let me put it this way: Eh?
Does this imply that for 1 out of 10 IE doesn't deliver content? Well, not that I'd wonder about that. It's M$ software after all...

Re:For those who RTFA...

[Grrr]

- What do they deliver the tenth time?

- I had no idea the entire Web was being delivered to me when I use M$IE. Whoa. All these humungous temp files suddenly make more sense.

- Good thing they don't make parachutes.

((rimshot))

<grrr>

Re:For those who RTFA...

[black mariah]

First of all, those that moderated this interesting are fucking stupid. It's a joke. Second of all, it's not a particularly funny joke because it's pretty fucking obvious that what is meant is that nine out of ten web users use IE.

Continue Anyway

[denlin]

Shutterfly, the online photo store backed by Netscape co-founder Jim Clark, does not support any version of Opera or Mozilla browsers, according to a warning displayed on the site this week.

this is one of my gripes about some websites. i noticed shutterfly has a "Click Next if you wish to skip future warnings and use Shutterfly with this unsupported browser." great, i can make the choice to puruse a sub-"standard" website if i still want to. sometimes i think they forget that they are offering goods/services that i can find somewhere else.

Re:Continue Anyway

[Reziac]

I just checked shutterfly against Mozilla with the user-agent set to IE6, and the site still whined about my browser. So it is really checking for some function and not just filtering on user-agent.

Re:Continue Anyway

[black mariah]

Since you're in such a tiny fraction of a minority of users (i.e. Non IE users), I don't think they really give a fuck about you.

Re:Continue Anyway

[jimmyharris]

Even better, I get an "Unsupported browser error" on Shutterfly despite my browser explicitly being mentioned as supported (Safari / OS X). Great coding there guys...

Not confirmed...

[d3bruts1d]

Last I checked, it had not been confirmed that MS is the one who paid the money to Opera Software. Bust since I read it on the internet, it must be true.

"Reached by phone, Opera executives refused to name the company involved in the settlement or describe the nature of the legal claims, citing a confidentiality agreement."

Re:Not confirmed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. He seems to be one of the few that actually read the article. CNet hasn't confirmed anything. Great excuse to bash M$ though.

Some other notable quotes:

A Microsoft representative said the company does not comment on rumors.

"Who else could it be but Microsoft?" ProComp President Mike Pettit said this week, referring to the payment.

Re:Not confirmed...

[wes33]

Alright then ... it was me! I just felt like dropping $12 million so that Opera would quit bothering microsoft.

(disclaimer: above statement may not be entirely accurate and terms of the agreement do not permit clarification)

maybe it was to kill Opera's cell/PDA browser?

[johnpaul191]

tinfoil hat alert!

yes, IE is quite secure in M$-windows desktop/laptop browser dominance. besides Opera there are a few other browsers for computers...... but the cell phone/PDA market is still up in the air. M$ has their own OS for cell phones and PDAs, and if they can show people that Opera's offerings for devices doesn't work so well, it may help their case. Add to the fact that EVERY Verizon DSL customer is now considered an MSN subscriber their numbers are growing (on paper).

maybe i'm wrong, but unless it's something personal i would think Mozilla is still a bigger threat to IE than Opera in the PC realm. I would guess this is for some emerging market.... being cellphone/PDAs or some other embedded devices (cable boxes or whatever?).

Re:Opera's finances?

[Brummund]

If you'd cared to investigate your spyware claim, you'd find that Opera has a strict privacy policy, and that they stick to it.

Excerpt from Opera's privacy policy.

Opera Software has taken much care in the development so that user privacy and security are not compromised. No personal information is collected or shared, and providing ad profile information in the browser is strictly optional. The Opera user's Web usage is not tracked. What is recorded and shared with the advertising service provider is the user's interaction with the relative banner advertising.

In fact, Opera is an exemplary company, and even allows their developers to interact and answer questions on USENET and other forums. I've been a registered user of Opera for some time now, and I've always been amazed by their level of customer support and service.

I'm not sure what you mean by a sensible business model. It is possible to BUY the product, as well as using a free version (with advertising). I guess "sensible business model" according to some regulars here mean "Give it away for free, and buy lots of lottery tickets or hope some investor will bail you out", but that model actually stopped working 4 years ago.

Opera actually makes money.

Re:Opera's finances?

[Ianoo]

No, I'm bashing the fact that in order to do AdSense, Opera sends the URL of the page you're viewing to Google, and then displays a page of relevant advertising. This is exactly how Gator works when installed alongside Internet Explorer.

Just get your facts straight!

[hkmwbz]

This is not about blackmail, but about a series of conflicts between Microsoft and Opera, as well as direct lies from a Microsoft spokesperson in the media. Yes, it is fine to block browsers if you want to. But that isn't what Microsoft does. Microsoft keeps detecting that you are using Opera (even when identified as something else) and sending broken code to it. This hasn't happened just once, but several times. A few times with MSN.com, and now lately, MSNBC.com looked bad in Opera because Opera got broken code, while all other browsers got code that actually worked.

What MS is doing is not fine. They are detecting that you are using Opera and making Opera look bad by serving it bad code. It is not "perfectly legit" at all.

You are correct sir!

[Anonymous Coward]

"12 million dollars" or "$12 million", would be correct.

Answer IBM, HP and all the others

[SmallFurryCreature]

There is just a tiny little problem and that is all the others have patents too.

You fell prey to one of life's classic blunders. The most famous is, 'Don't get involved in a land war in Asia. Slightly less well known is Don't get involved in patent pissing contest with IBM when money is on the line'.

Look up if you have time a recent setback for MS were they were told to remove the clause from their contracts that stops their OEM's from enforcing their patents against MS.

Re:Answer IBM, HP and all the others

[nigel_atkinson]

I spent the last few years building up immunity to technology patents. (groan)

Re:Answer IBM, HP and all the others

[plj]

Don't get involved in patent pissing contest with IBM when money is on the line

Well - the story was about Opera. If IBM, HP and similar-size companies would be the only ones who could reasonably have any legal stand against MS, it wouldn't be that funny for the OSS community. See, not every project that is critical to success of OSS has something like Big Blue among their major contributors.

For Opera-like proprietary ISV's who are not backed by big ones it would create even worse threat than for OSS community. Think about if MS had reacted to this thing like "Okay, let's go to court. Btw, lets also sue them for 4 patent infringements, as they are using [insert at least 4 obvious-but-patented-by-MS technologies here] in their products."

No, that is not happening yet, but that is mostly because MS has only recently switched to very aggressive gear in building their patent portfolio. And that was the point of my joke.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[acebone]

Load of crap man... They deliberately served a page that would not function in a particular browser. The explanation that it was a bugfix for Opera 6 does not hold - since Opera 6 showed the IE page just fine.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[cpghost]

What about accessibility laws? Do they apply only to government agencies, or can private/commercial websites be liable for gratuitously locking out a portion of the user population?

Re:Opera's finances?

[Ianoo]

So how does AdSense actually work? The adverts that are displayed are relevant to the page the user is currently viewing. Doesn't this imply that somewhere in the chain, the URL of the page that the user is viewing (or at least keywords that appear on it) are being sent to a third party? Do you really trust the third party advertiser to respect the privacy policies Opera lays down and not mine the fuck out of the reams of valuable data that must be coming in every day? I don't think I would. This is, after all, how Gator works. I'm sure they have a privacy policy too.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not exactly clear on why anyone would want to voluntarily visit MSN in the first place.

There is, but...

[blorg]

...it always appends the string 'Opera' at the end of the user agent string identifying itself as IE. The idea was that this would be sufficient to fool websites that were just checking for IE, as Opera will generally render such pages fine. It wasn't designed to deal with websites that actively try to target Opera users (why would someone want to do such a thing?)

MSN was searching for the string 'Opera' in order to serve up the broken style sheet.

Isn't there an option in Opera to send a different User-Agent, therefore fooling MSN into thinking that the browser is IE?

Re:There is, but...

[QBasicer]

...it always appends the string 'Opera' at the end of the user agent string identifying itself as IE.

Oh, too bad there wasn't a way to remove this...a proxy maybe? But I guess that's a lot of work.

Re:Opera's finances?

[theskipper]

Well, there doesn't seem to be any spyware in the version that I paid $39 for. Imho, exchanging money for software seems to be a sensible business model.

Favoritism?

[Kragg]

IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards, because Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.

I wonder what it delivers to the other 1 in 10?

Re:Favoritism?

[black mariah]

You need basic English comprehension lessons. How about this. Remove the comma and the because. Insert a period. Now read these sentences.

IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards. Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.

Even as a joke, your comments are fucking stupid.

Re:Opera's finances?

[Ianoo]

I don't honestly see that it's worth it when you compare Opera to near-as-competent free software browsers like Firefox or Konqueror.

Longhorn == UNIX + Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to building UNIX in to Windows...
bought pieces of rights from sun and sco

Re:This would appear to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were to view this settlement as an admission of guilt (a safe assumption in this case?) this means more than the $12M to both parties.

A very unsafe assumption. Setelments usually are made so no guilt or innoconce is proven. It never goes in front of a judhe so how can one company admit guilt (which is a legal admission).

They settle and say we won't admit a thing but we will pay to shut you up.

WARNING - troll! Mods please read.

[hkmwbz]

Please don't fall for this troll. The fact is that Opera 6 worked just fine with the page sent to MSIE.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[t_allardyce]

IE doesnt have better features, it just doesnt conform to standards so instead they make-up features that have already been standardised. The whole point of webstandards is that you stick to them, otherwise you get stuck with one browser (just because its already installed) and inferior was of doing things that havnt been thought out as well as the official standards. Opera was complaining because of the monopoly of IE (already taken to court in the anti-trust case) and the way they were using that monopoly to only allow IE to use the site - in some cases it was found that they were actively banning browsers that identified themselves as Opera. IE certainly does not have better features than anything else and if everyone had stuck to standards in the first place all sites would work on any browser with full functionability! microsoft fucked that up for the rest of us tho, sometimes i just want to cry when coding some css i discover the perfect way of doing something that wont work because Microsoft IE doesnt support it. Any monkey can make software with features but the real test of good software is how compatable and non-specific it is.

12 million is totally unfair for anyone to have to pay for making a crap website but given the anti-trust case and microsofts general fuck-witted-ness i say they can suck my cock and pay up, those bitches!

Re:Opera's finances?

[zxSpectrum]

Whether you use AdSense or regular banner ads is up to you. Choose the regular banner ads and no URLs you visit are sent to Google.

Only on the PC

[SmallFurryCreature]

On the mobile phone Opera is a very real player. In fact that is where opera makes it money. Not from PC browsers (wich most people pirate anyway) but from licenses sold to phone makers.

Just try one of the non-ms "modern" phones. Shouldn't be too hard. Most are non-ms. All the nokia ones I seen had an opera browser.

This is something MS doesn't like. It has tried everything it could outside murder to get a foothold in the mobile phone market without success. PDA's are slightly more succesfull but its old reputation of rebooting is really hurting it from the customer perspective. PDA's and certainly PC's we are used to being bugged but we expect or mobile phones to be like our land line phones. Just working.

From the phone makers perspective MS reputation of screwing everyone makes them very determined not to rely on MS software.

So in yes opera is a real threat. If ever that vision where the Mobile phone will be the main computer everyone uses and not the PC then people might also suddenly see that an OS doesn't have to be rebooted and that browser do exist that just bloody work.

So opera is a real threat. So why did MS settle? Even Bill Gates must be learning from all the legal problems MS is having. Sure 12 million is nothing to MS but it ain't 12 million. It is 12 million to opera, 600 million to the EU, close to a billion to various american states, lots of other legal cases being settled all the tune of millions, the case against lindows wich is not going all that well. Each individual case will not be enough but put them all together and MS is losing some real money while gaining nothing.

And each and every case only shows MS as the evil company. Not good.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[mortenalver]

You don't know what you are talking about. MSN was sending broken pages to Opera, while Opera was perfectly capable of displaying the pages served when it identified itself as IE.

Re:This would appear to be...

[fuzzix]

A very unsafe assumption. Setelments usually are made so no guilt or innoconce is proven. It never goes in front of a judhe so how can one company admit guilt (which is a legal admission).

From a purely technical perspective this is a fair point, however there is quite a bit of evidence from various sources (coupled with my own first hand experience) that Microsoft purposely tampered with style sheets served to browsers with the Opera UA.
I wasn't passing a guilty verdict (I'm not qualified ;), merely balancing my own experience and what others have pointed out to be able to say "They're the ones wot dunnit!"

Re:Opera's finances?

[Brummund]

You have two options in the free version of Opera:

A) Relevant text ads, using Google Adsense. Google needs to know which site you're visiting.
B) Generic banner ads.

How to select ad model:

1. In Opera, go to File/Preferences/Advertising.
2. Put one hand on the top of your head.
3. If the fingers on the hand mentioned in instruction 2 can feel the presence of tinfoil, select ad model B
4. If not, choose model A

Compare to Be, Inc. settlement

[That's Unpossible!]

What really sickens me is Opera gets almost half the settlement that Be, Inc. got (about $25 million).

Now compare the two offenses. Screwing up a few Microsoft webpages for Opera users, vs. destroying a company with anti-trust tactics, such as squashing deals between Be and other OEM's (see: Hitachi)... Christ I could go on, but it's too depressing. Long live MacOS and PalmOS NG.

Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Opera re-invent themselve? Why? They are doing fine. The PC is a sideline to them. Basically they are supplying a browser for every platform out there. Something no other browser is capable off.

Their money comes from bulk licenses sold to phone makers and similar. Not from consumer licenses.

Sure it would be nice if opera was a real contender on the PC market but how do you compete with a free product when quality is something only tiny percentage of customers understand? Even mozilla and its offspring is having a hardtime and they are free.

Also if you run multipl OS'es, having one single browser between them is awfully handy. I can't tell you how much more I swear at IE now that it is refusing to listen to my mouse movements whenever I am on a non-opera machine.

Re:Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting info, i didn't do my homework :)

Re:Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[4lex]

I'm not sure what fate propietary browsers will face if Mozilla family continues to improve. As Mozilla Firefox (or some funny name derivative) reaches the phones, I doubt many companies will be happy to pay Opera for a browser which is less known than the free alternative (besides free-as-in-beer, the free-as-in-GNU part allows them to tinker and adapt the browser to their specific needs).

Just my 0.02 euro.

Re:Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[black mariah]

They'll continue on, because Mozilla is a bloated piece of shit. Unfortunately, it's also the best thing going on Linux. Galeon used to be good, but the developers apparently suffered some brain damage and half the fucking features are gone. Opera is mega fucked at the resolution I use. So, I'm stuck with this shitheap browser called Mozilla until I can get XP reinstalled on my system. Excuse me while I vomit blood and pass out.

Re:Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with reinstaling XP on your system is you can't afford it or the learning curve?

Re:Buy a nokia, wich browser does it have?

[black mariah]

Neither. I have about 25GB of stuff to backup first. I don't have a DVD burner, so it's going to get spread across CD's.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if the browser won't break the page by itself, you really need to write a special stylesheet, which intentionally breaks the page.

You wouldn't want Opera-users to see the page using the MSIE stylesheet, because then it would look exactly like in MSIE, which we of course don't want.

Re:This would appear to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is that the settlement absolves them from any wrong doing. They did indeed tamper with the style sheets but Opera decided that they would take 12$ million instead of making Microsoft admit to any wrongdoing. Since Opera brought forth the charges the settlement dismisses them and since Microsoft can't be charged with the same crime by a different source they will never have to admit what they did and can deny it until the end of time and Opera can't disagree. I am sure there are some "No talking shit" clauses in the settlement as well.

They are going to purchase....

[gosand]

Actually, it's been said before, but they're not getting beat down here....they're settling all their open litigation. I'm not sure to what end this is progressing towards, but something tells me that Microsoft themselves is trying to clear all open cases against them so that they can gear up for something big. I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...

If I had to venture a guess - they're going to buy a big media company. The only business that has more control than MS in their respective field is the entertainment industry. Once you have more money than you know what to do with, what do you go after? Controlling information. MS lost with controlling the internet, so they are going to go for the popular media.

Re:They are going to purchase....

[lamona]

Note that M$ recently partnered with Time-Warner to purchase ContentGuard (previously owned by Xerox and M$ jointly). ContentGuard holds that patents on DRM that M$ will use when its DRM-enabled OS is in place. Who will that OS benefit? Big media companies, who are currently holding off on distributing their content in digital form because they fear piracy. So your guess about purchasing a media company looks like a good one. They're already forming the partnerships with those companies.

Re:They are going to purchase....

[Reziac]

Worked real well for AOL.. ;)

But I think you're right, in that M$ is at least trying to position themselves into a serious media partnership, if not an outright purchase. And not something like MSNBC, but rather an entertainment outlet, where they can do much more serious product placement, etc.

Re:Opera's finances?

[timmyf2371]

Will this $12 million mean Opera can get rid of the spyware that seems to be incorperated into the free version of their browser and move to a more sensible business model?

I see no problems with their current pricing structure:

"Don't want to pay for our software? You can view ads as an alternative."
"Don't like adverts? Pay a low fee if you like the software."

Really, what is your problem in paying for software you like to use if you don't want to view adverts?

In Opera AS's interest to keep Opera in user agent

[blorg]

Well, the point is that you shouldn't have to remove it, as (one would imagine) websites should not be going out of their way to identify you as an Opera user so that they can serve you something broken. (Although there are a very small number of sites that do this as a misguided protest over Google AdWords in the unregistered version of Opera - I can't find any references right now.) Opera actually explain how the spoofing works here and point out how you can always still detect Opera.

Opera would have a vested interest in making sure that the string is always there for people who are actually looking for it, to compile market share statistics (there is some discussion of the spoofing problem on that page also).

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[stry_cat]

You're missing the point.

If you don't like what MSN is doing, don't use the site. They shouldn't have to be forced to live exactly like you want them to. They should be free to do as they please and shouldn't be blackmailed for doing something to help inferior browser users.

If they're doing something really stupid they'll lose customers and then they'll figure out they need to change.

More info: The actual lies from Microsoft.

[hkmwbz]

Bob Visse from Microsoft claimed that Opera does not support XHTML:

"We do identify the string from the browser, and the only issue that we have is that the Opera browser doesn't support the latest XHTML standard," said Visse. "So we do suggest to those users that they go download a browser that does support the latest standards."

Opera obviously does support XHTML, and issued a press release in XHTML which points out Microsoft's lie.

This and other lies from Microsoft are exposed in an Opera press release.

IE 3.0

[Anonymous Coward]

And with stylesheet for IE 3.0!

Additional information...

[hkmwbz]

Microsoft's lies are covered in this press release from Opera.

Re:Opera's finances?

[theskipper]

You may very well be right and I wasted my money. But, at the time, the tabbed interface and easy control over cookies and Java(script) was what I was looking for so the transaction took place.

What's interesting is that I actually used Adsense a few times. Only "banners" I've ever clicked. By your definition it's spyware; to me, I balanced the fact that the queries were going through Google and got a useful link. Opera and Google made a few pennies because I trust them (until either start to screw up, that is).

Oh btw, there are 3 fewer IE users in the world now because I evangelized Opera...surely that counts for something...

MS incapable of standards

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems to be a reoccurring theme with MS. MS has to start to realise that they are not sole custodians of standards, this is down to the community as a whole. Also the fact that standards are developed and put into place for the betterment and benefit of the community as a whole, not just MS.

MS it seems is incapable of sticking or supporting even it's own standards, CSS is an utter mess on IE. .NET can't even produce valid HTML, even though it's meant to be based on XML standards. Time and time again we see MS re-inventing the wheel, C# (hash not sharp, yet another example of MS twisting facts) is as near as dam it to JAVA. Why do they do this? Just so they can claim they "own" a standard and then actively look out others?

Exactly!

[zonix]

They feared (rightly) that if true system independence were to come about due to people using a browser as their portal to software, that their windows monopoly would be threatened in some way.

And quite brilliantly they handled that threat too!

Put in a purposely broken implementation of Java (MS Java VM) and instead promote your own proprietary ActiveX technology with even deeper ties to Windows, no security sandbox, etc.

So finally Microsoft is being forced (or are they still?) to bundle Sun Java instead, but too late. They've stopped development of MS Java VM. It doesn't matter, it's no longer a threat to them.

And now look where we are. I can't do my homebanking without having to boot up in Windows thanks to ActiveX. And I'm having a hell of a great time trying to help friends get rid of the CoolWebSearch spyware variants, thanks to a critical vulnerability in the MS Java VM.

MSN serving broken CSS, and IE still having longstanding unfixed CSS bugs is history repeating itself.

sigh

z

True

[KamuSan]

But it fits in their track record...

What's the saying? A crook is a crook is a crook, isn't it? ;-)

Hotmail

[AlecC]

Hotmail now works in Opera, which it didn't before. Surprise, surprise.

Wanna hear something sad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget which version implemented Microsoft's idea of CSS2 support, but in any case it's still not complete.

[...]

I agree that we shouldn't be stuck with 1998 technologies.

The sad thing is that CSS 2 is a 1998 technology. That's right, Microsoft have not come close to properly implementing a specification they helped write after six years! The CSS 2 specification was published in its final form on the 12th of May 1998, and was available as a working draft since at least the 4th of November 1997.

And Microsoft are still holding us back from using CSS 2 fully.

Hush money

[quisph]

Opera has accused Microsoft of deliberately breaking interoperability between its MSN Web portal and various versions of the Opera browser--charges that the software giant has repeatedly denied.

And now they can go on denying it forever. $12.75 million settlement == hush money.

Thanks for taking the easy way out, Opera. Maybe I'll give Mozilla a try.

Re:Hush money

[hkmwbz]

Before you post silly stuff like this, at least take the time to read other discussions about this in the same story.

How can Microsoft deny anything, when the facts speak for themselves? Opera already has MS thoroughly exposed. Microsoft making Opera look bad, and lying about Opera to the press. I'd say Bob Visse's words in the press is evidence Microsoft can hardly deny.

As for "taking the easy way out", do you really think a tiny company like Opera stands a chance in hell of getting Microsoft convicted of anything? Microsoft has billions of dollars. Opera has a few million. Microsoft would just drag this out and make Opera go bankrupt. Not to mention the fact that Opera is a Norwegian company.

Oh yeah, and Opera has all but confirmed that it was Microsoft. But still, until MS or Opera actually states this officially, we can only speculate.

And you start speculating, drawing your own misguided conclusions, and start talking about Mozilla?! Geez.

Re:Hush money

[nordicfrost]

Thanks for taking the easy way out, Opera

E
Er... Do you know that USD 12 000 000 is more than the one year turnover for Opera? This little settlement gave them ONE YEAR IN TURNOVER FOR FREE, a torrent of bad publicity for their nemesis and a lot of goodwill from anyone not a giant software vendor. This is very, very smart of Opera, since it gives them bonus capital to pursue their objectives without having to worry a lot about mone in a couple of years.

So, even if it is hush money, it is free hush money to a company already kicking the balls (albeit very silently) of the company that paid it to keep mum. (See 12^3 comments on this page about Opera superiority in Mobile phones and embedded devices.)

Re:Hush money

[quisph]

As for "taking the easy way out", do you really think a tiny company like Opera stands a chance in hell of getting Microsoft convicted of anything? Microsoft has billions of dollars. Opera has a few million. Microsoft would just drag this out and make Opera go bankrupt. Not to mention the fact that Opera is a Norwegian company.

First of all, civil cases do not result in a "conviction."

Secondly, it seems unlikely that a settlement this large would be paid unless the payer believed that Opera's case had merit.

Thirdly, you're a fine one to talk about misguided conclusions, because I never said that Opera necessarily should have sued Microsoft -- they could have simply *not* taken the $12.75 million, and continued to enjoy the freedom to speak freely about the incident (not to mention freedom from any other conditions which might have been attached to that money).

How can Microsoft deny anything, when the facts speak for themselves?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth. If "the facts speak for themselves," then please explain to me how you believe Microsoft could successfully contest them in court. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Hush money

[black mariah]

You do that, fuckface. Your psycho paranoid delusional dickheaded bullshit probably won't be missed. Grow the fuck up, retard.

Re:Hush money

[quisph]

So how is that not the easy way out? Do you think it's *hard* to accept $12.75 million?

Am I surprised that they took the money? No. Would I have taken it myself? Hell yeah. But I am still left with a strong sense that Microsoft got off too easy (again), and it disappoints me.

Agreed, Avalon makes browsers obsolete

[KamuSan]

Can't mod you up, but your post is really insightful.

Why bother updating a web browser if you plan to roll out a new technology which makes web browsers obsolete *and* will enforce lock-in for the rest of the century?

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[t_allardyce]

True they are free to do what they want and they could build the whole site in sparkle or flash if they wanted, but opera is superior to IE, which cant even get the css box-model right (some 2-year-olds can understand where a box should be).

Actually Moz can support Active X

[DABANSHEE]

Moz supports Netscape plugins & some people bought out a Active X interoperability Netscape plugin that make it possible for browsers that support Netscape plugins to use Active X applets.

BTW the same people also bought out a Netscape plugin interoperability Active X applet, so one could still use Netscape plugins on newer versions of IE that arn't Netscape plugin compatible. For example it took quite a while for the chemistry 3D Chime plugin people to create a Active X applet when MS all of a sudden killed Netscape plugin compatability. Meaning until the Chime people bought out their Active X applet, people could hypothetically use that Netscape plugin interoperability Active X applet to make Chime compatible with the newer version of IE. Mind you I think these interoperability applets & plugins onle came out after most developers (including the Chime people) had burned the midnight oil creating their new Active X applets anyway.

Mind you it's good to know the options are available. I've got a link somewhere but these days it's easier to google than navigate through my bookmarks.

Re:Opera's finances?

[hkmwbz]

"I don't honestly see that it's worth it when you compare Opera to near-as-competent free software browsers like Firefox or Konqueror"

Opera is a small download packed with features. It has a browser, email, chat, news, newsfeeds, and, well, generally more features than you can shake a stick at.

Why Opera? Because all these features are available immediately, and they are all integrated in a way which makes it convenient to use Opera. One might not want to spend a lot of time finding Firefox extensions to emulate Opera's feature set when it's all there already when you install Opera.

Not to mention the mail client M2, which totally rethinks the way mail is handled. It uses a database and "queries" rather than folders. Searches tens of thousands of mails takes less than a second... And so on.

Opera's features are all created with a common goal, unlike most Firefox extensions. They are created by different people with different goals, so they may not integrate well together.

The differences between Opera and Gator.

[hkmwbz]

Opera and Gator do not work the same way:

• Opera forces you to choose between targeted ads and generic ads (no URL sent to anyone). You cannot even start browsing unless you have specifically chosen between them, and everything is explained before you make that conscious choice. It is not buried in some huge EULA, but in the actual dialog box where you choose between ads. Gator is secretly installed on PCs and doesn't allow the user to choose at all.
• Opera does not change the web page, replace ads on pages with its own or open popups. The ads are kept strictly in one place - in the user interface, outside the page viewing area. Gator replaces ads on web pages with its own and uses popup windows.
• Opera's targeted ads are hosted by Google, a company most people trust. And most people trust Opera.

These are significant differences. Opera cannot be compared to Gator at all.

blood money

[Doc Ruby]

What will Opera spend the money on? Denying Opera access to MSN hurts Opera users. Every dollar of the $12M Opera spends on laying on the beach, or Aeron chairs, that doesn't go to improving Opera, is cheating the Opera users of any "remedy" to the damage Opera sued M$ for. Opera users will have been shepherded, like lambs to the slaughter, for Opera execs' mutton.

monopoly money

[Doc Ruby]

$12M is big money for Opera, but small money for M$. So of course M$ will do it again, probably even to Opera. That turns Opera's business model into extortion, and keeps M$ a monopoly.

Two Words...

[Landaras]

I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...

I have two words to answer your question.

Software Patents

A few more words...

Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard in February regarding not just SCO, but the future direction of the IT industry at large.

He said that today the battle is over copyright. In five years the battle will be over software patents. And in ten years the battle will shift to that of bandwidth. Of ensuring that everyone has access to bandwidth as easily as they do electricity, so that all may share in the information that is available.

My dates may be slightly off, but you can see the coming progression of battlefields.

Microsoft engages in illegal and immoral behavior. But they are not stupid. They are preparing for the next war, which will be software patents.

The transcript of Eben Moglen's speech can be viewed here from Groklaw and the video of his speech can be viewed here from Harvard. (Sorry, it's in Real Media format)

If you haven't seen that speech, you should. To call it enlightening is to do it a disservice.

- Neil Wehneman

P.S. I realize I use battle and war imagery a lot in this post, but quite frankly I believe the stakes are that high. Imagine if the printing press revolution had fallen to the entrenched interests of the day. We are now in the same situation, only with digital information.

Re:not that

[BBird]

c They showed this was not the case. MS server was rendering different content just
for Opera.

Oh, the irony

[corsican]

I just switched to Opera because IE was crashing when it tried to load the MSN home page...

I've had Opera for a while, but only recently set it as my default. I'll never go back to IE.

Fsck you Gill Bates.

[rice_burners_suck]

Heh... Microsoft pays $12M to avoid a lawsuit? They know that their legal department could push anyone around for any length of time. Why, then, would they pay out instead of going to court? I think the answer is that they know it would be extremely easy for Opera to prove its claims (which are true, by the way, I use Opera and I know that a lot of Microsoft's pages break under Opera--they ID the browser and then the HTML sent, if you're using Opera, contains tags to screw up the page, so users will think that Opera is not a good browser, when in fact, it's the opposite--Opera ROCKS and Internet Exploder is a piece of dog poop... besides, this is Microsoft's oldest trick in the book, kind of like making Windows 3.1 crash intermittently if you're using DR-DOS, when in fact there was no technical reason that this should happen). So Microsoft is paying out because they know they will lose this one, and not only will they pay, they'll probably end up paying more, not to mention the legal costs.

Opera. Because friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer. Or Windows. Or anything else that comes from Redmond.

(Did I mention Opera works equally well on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS? It's a great piece of software. That's why I keep paying $40 (or however much it is) to put it on every computer I have, and I install the "free" (ad) version on every computer I set up for my friends and co-workers. And don't say you don't like the million billion toolbars it has. Just turn them all off and you've got a nice clean browser that renders all pages.)

Re:Fsck you Gill Bates.

[mabu]

...makes you wonder if during the discovery phase of such a trial, research might reveal even more underhandedness on the part of MS, so it was worth it for them to make it all go away.

Guess you haven't been reading macslash lately

[iamacat]

If I wasn't so satisfied with Safari, I'd switch

Safari "supports" MacOSX URL handlers, which basically let web pages automatically run arbitary code by first mounting a disk image or an ftp share and then going to some foo:// URL schema that an application contained there registers - by just being there, no need for user to run it. This is worse than ActiveX, because you don't even get a Yes/No message box.

By contrast, Opera only lets the user add URL handlers explicitely through it's preferences and asks before launching helper apps. Maybe a good time to look at it again?

Re:Guess you haven't been reading macslash lately

[torpor]

Safari "supports" MacOSX URL handlers

Yeah, thanks for the 'headsup', I already know about this and have my own protection (web proxy marks bad URL's) in place for continued safe browsing ... though, I look forward to Apple releasing a fix, of course ...

Opera is a nice browser. But I've just gotten too used to the speed of Safari ...

the Br'er Rabbit gambit, again

[wmeyer]

So MS pays again, in the process, propping up a company with a questionable business model, and helping to further the notion that there is competition in the browser market, something which may be worth a good deal more than the $12 million paid.

It's puzzling to me that no one seems bothered by the new business model: sue MS and settle when your own product won't pay the rent. In fact, one could make a case that Opera had this in mind from the outset.

Mixed implications

[Magic5Ball]

I think I'm glad they settled, because of the alternative. Had Opera won this in a courtroom setting, random browser/software makers would be that much closer to successfully litigating in the future against their competetitors for not making their products compatible.

Also, this $12 million settlement keeps Opera from getting any more media attention now, which is very cheap compared to what the cleanup would cost Microsoft. In those regards, this isn't a loss for Microsoft.

only if you ask it to

[midgley]

and how else could it do that?

Microsoft freeing up its legal team

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Microsoft is freeing up its legal team for the upcomming patent wars. They don't want their legal team tied up in pointless and counterproductive litigation which does not have the effect of destroying open source.

At one time, it was worth fighting companies like Opera. Bleed their cash. Steal their ideas. Sabatoge their product, etc.

But now, it is much higher priority for the legal team to be ready for the new patent wars.

The Wikipedia explanation seems to be WRONG

[madmaxmedia]

Reading over the explanation page, it does not seem that the generic browser page has that -30px setting, ONLY the Opera browser. For example, when they identified the browser as 'Oprah' (generic unknown browser), it did not get the wonky style sheet.

And it's important to note that both current and previous versions of Opera rendered the correct HTML/CSS just fine, so this wasn't a matter of MS not keeping up to date with Opera upgrades.

So for whatever reason, the MSN page was set up to specifically feed Opera users a CSS that did not work. Everyone else BUT Opera got the default CSS (which Opera renders perfectly)

The explanation given on that Wikipedia page you mentioned does not jibe with the technical details provided on the Opera page. Opera is not just making a bunch of sweeping claims, they do back it up with details.

There may be a non-'evil empire' explanation for this, but no one has provided a good one that suitably takes into account all of the details.

Time to think and get informed before posting.

[hkmwbz]

Opera's bringing in more and more money from their browser products. How exactly is this "a questionable business model"?

And based on the fact that revenues are increasing rapidly, how can you even think about claiming that Opera relies on lawsuits for revenue.

Fact: Opera makes enough money just by selling a browser. Anyone who has followed the company and read a few interviews with the CEO knows that you are talking out of your ass.

Also, this has been discussed before. I guess I shouldn't even mention the fact that Microsoft was spreading lies about Opera through the media, should I?

Man, try to inform yourself before shooting your mouth off like that.

Re:Time to think and get informed before posting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Microsoft have a rule against astroturfing? Or are you doing this without your employer's knowledge? I certainly hope so. I don't think MS wants to be caught astroturfing again.

MSFT STILL sends Different Stylesheets to Opera

[Meterman]

They still send broken or at least different style sheets to Opera regardless of the identifier preferences setting in Opera.

Look at MSN on IE and look at it from Opera. No nice round corners, no dynamic content.

Save the IE source and open it in Opera and voila! It looks almost the same. There is some dynamic content that still dosn't work in Opera, but that looks like an IE specific effect (I'm no expert)
(style="filter=progid:DXImageTransform.Mi crosoft.F ade(overlap=1.0)) perhaps?

Just an observation.
Boohoo. Don't like it then don't go there.

Just get your facts straight!-DR-DOS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"What MS is doing is not fine. They are detecting that you are using Opera and making Opera look bad by serving it bad code. It is not "perfectly legit" at all."

As I mentioned in another forum. This is just shades of DR-DOS.

Be destroyed themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Their product sucked. It never had enough product focus to make a dent in the marketplace.

Well, Now That Opera Has $12 Million

[Master of Transhuman]

Maybe they can prevent Opera crashing every time I go to The Register site.

Don't get me wrong, I like Opera and rarely use anything else - but it's getting irritating. I see all these improvements to various usability matters and email and news handling that I don't care about (because I use other programs for those things) in Opera 7.5 but short shrift given to INTEROPERABILITY with sites that write to IE specs. THAT is where Opera needs to focus its efforts if it wants to get more market share versus IE.

Re:Well, Now That Opera Has $12 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? I can't remember Opera ever crashing while reading The Register.

Who really profited?

[maximilln]

This is the way of the business world:

1. Try to support a beta version of Opera and fail
2. Fuel the media hype that there's a "conspiracy"
3. Buy controlling shares in the "abused" company
4. Settle a lawsuit
5. Dump the shares at the price inflated by the hype
6. PROFIT

Duh.

Seriously. Would we as consumers even have any way to know if some MS VPs purchased large chunks of Opera stock, say, a week or two before the settlement? How about if their tee-time friends did?

Even if there were a conspiracy, either to kill the browser or profit from the hype, we'd never be able to prove it.

Re:Who really profited?

[hkmwbz]

1. They didn't try to support a beta version of Opera. The IE style sheet works perfectly in all versions of Opera, but they deliberately sent broken code to Opera instead.

2. Conspiracy or not, MSN.com was broken several times, and it was using browser sniffing to single out Opera. Recently, the same happened to MSNBC.com. Add to this Microsoft's lies to the press about Opera, and you get a pretty accurate picture of the situation...

3. The founders of the company still own the controlling shares.

5. (Skipping 4.) The shares are only available for purchase in Norway, on the Oslo Stock Exchange. Microsoft is a US company, a foreign company.

"Would we as consumers even have any way to know if some MS VPs purchased large chunks of Opera stock, say, a week or two before the settlement?"

You talk about conspiracies, but your conspiracy theory is the most ridiculous yet.

Re:Who really profited?

[maximilln]

Piss off. You trolls are really starting to be jags. Do you watch my account every day? When was the last time you came up with anything even half as creative.

They could make movies off of my conspiracy plots. What can they do with your negative-attitude rebuttals? Wipe their backsides.

Not Fair?

[rsmith-mac]

While there is no doubt that Microsoft has been up to shady practices in the Opera ordeal, I can't get over the fact that they were going to be sued over their own site. I mean, it's probably a good thing Opera got a cool 12mil out of this, but why should Microsoft be responsible to Opera in any way? It's Microsoft's site, shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it, including blocking whatever browsers they want? Any what are the implications of this; could I be sued for making an IE-incompatible website? Frankly, I don't like where this is going.

Re:Not Fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFC, moron.

Microsoft has been feeding wrong code to Opera on several occasions, making Opera look bad. In addition, a Microsoft exect started spreading lies about Opera through the press.

An honest mistake is one thing, but this showed a pattern of lying, deceit, and trying to make Opera look bad.

And since Microsoft is a monopoly it has certain restrictions that don't apply to everyone else.

By the way, only IE works with Windows Update, but no one is screaming since Microsoft is up front about it.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is a great browser, but with this injection of fresh cash they should be able to expand their views. Web related services, e.g., are said to have a great future, and somebody will eventually have to help the Norwegian government in their switch to free software.

Good call, assclowns...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, most of you are forgetting, or just don't know, that in America you have the right to refuse business to anyone you want to. Even if it's because you want to discriminate upon them, you don't need to serve them or even give them the time of day. So, I ask you, how would this be any different? Nobody is forcing you to use Opera or MSN, deal with it.

How the money will be spent...

[hkmwbz]

Hah. It is obvious that you haven't read all articles about this thing. The same day this was announced, an Opera exec was interviewed about it, and he mentioned how they would be celebrating this:

A single piece of ice cream for each employee.

So I don't think you have to worry too much about the company wasting the money :^)

Re:How the money will be spent...

[Doc Ruby]

Er, the ice cream might actually squeeze more productivity out of the employees, passing some value along to the damaged users. I'm talking about the execs laying on the beach, which does nothing for us.

Re:How the money will be spent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they be lying on the beach? One of the founders works actively on developing the browser, and the other one is the CEO, and he's a rather busy man. He hardly has any time to relax at all.

Re:How the money will be spent...

[Doc Ruby]

Because they just got $12M?

Re:The differences... - Mod parent up

[Grrr]

Great reply. Thank you.

<grrr>

Microsoft will pay...

[Whatthehellever]

All we need is some sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads and we'll make 'em pay.

Tort reform? Bzzzt wrong

[Starrider]

Tort reform isn't a loser pays system, at least in all the forms I have seen proposed. For example, in Oklahoma, a tort reform bill is up for debate. The majority of tort reform comes from limiting punitive damages , not actual damages. For example, if you are injured on the job, and the judge / jury found the employer negligent, there is NO limit on medical bills, lost wages, or pain-and-suffering benefits. The only restrictions are on punitive damages.

Punitive damages were initialy designed to punish the liable and serve as a deterrent to future abuse. Unfortunately, present-day juries have awarded outrageous punitive awards.

I repeat, the vast majority of tort reform does NOT limit actual damages!

Re:Tort reform? Bzzzt wrong

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Tort reform isn't a loser pays system, at least in all the forms I have seen proposed.

I meant my snarky one-line comment to apply only to the concept of "...deter[ring] poor companies/individuals from suing". Upon re-reading I can see that I was not sufficiently clear in indicating the scope of my comment. I apologize for that lack of clarity.

Unfortunately, present-day juries have awarded outrageous punitive awards.

"Outrageous" is an inherently unquantifiable word. I personally prefer to leave the decision of what is "outrageous" up to juries. There are injustices at every level of our justice system -- a runaway jury is hardly less rare than a runaway assistant DA, for example -- so in the final analysis I believe it best to leave power in the hands of citizens as much as possible.

Additionally, the very concept of punishment depends upon the action being of sufficient degree to motivate change on the part of the transgressing party. Just as thirty hours of picking up trash is unlikely to motivate a serial rapist to cease his/her rampage, a fine of thirty thousand dollars is unlikely to motivate change on the part of a serial toxic-waste dumper with three hundred million in annual revenues. While you can technically call both sentences examples of "punishment", in neither case could those sentences be considered by reasonable people to be "punitive".

This site optimized for arguing with customers

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just as easily expand their market 10-20% by supporting web standards.

By making it hard for customers to use your site, you're in effect telling them to take their business elsewhere. See an old discussion on the theme of you never win an arument with a customer.

Or as Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW, puts it,

" Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."

Re:This would appear to be...

[black mariah]

If you were to view this settlement as an admission of guilt (a safe assumption in this case?)

Actually, I'm viewing this as "Get out of our ass, you worthless whiny little pussies. Here's some money. Go play in traffic."

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[black mariah]

Then why didn't they break Opera 1-5 and 7 as well? Also, why not break Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Mosaic, and EVERY OTHER FUCKING BROWSER OUT THERE. This stupid fucking conspiracy shit is the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever fucking seen on slashdot. Seriously, Opera has about the same browser market share as MY URETHRA. Which is to say, VERY FUCKING LITTLE. Why the FUCK would MS break Opera, but not any browsers that a sizable group of people use?

YUO R A LOUSY TR0LL!!!!!!11!!1!!!111

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the most pathetic wannabe troll ever. You need to read up on how to be a good troll, n00b.

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[acebone]

Yeah - its so stupid that MS pays $12mill to NOT have it go to court :)

Re:Just don't visit MSN with Opera.

[sumdumass]

It isn't that MS or MSN was just serving up crappy code or that the browser doesn't handle it. It was a smear campain (that was effective too) that took the momentum out of opera browser sales.

There was a set of people bying Opera and deciding to use it (yea they were paying to use something over a free alternative already installed). Microsoft sought to discedit Opera by not sending the same website that internet explorer recived and instead intentionaly sending somethign that was fucked up. This isn't a web browser not suporting a page, IT rendered it exactly as it was supposed to. People have downloaded the web pages and saved them to the hardrive, then open them with opera with no problem. Also they saved the pages with opera and then open them to the same efect with internet explorer. (ie.. the opera pages were messed up reguardless of what browser it was using and the internet explorer pages were the same reguardless of what browser was beiong used.) the view source and opening the dsiote in an html editor show that the code was different and the pages actually had another title and such.

This was happening back when microsoft started giving away thier browser with every operating system and opera was gaining popularity and microsoft couldn't take charge of the web standards. remeber most of the breakthu and inovation that has happened to the web was back when there was actually competition. now with one market leader controling the majority of the web browsers, that has come to an end.

Take it for what you want but, the reason for doing it was to discredit other browsers and take control of the web market. Then they wouldn't have to waist money on development like before (it is just security updates now, not much in the way of functionality or inovation) so they could actually aford to give away the browser. Also OS/2 was giving microsoft a run for thier money at that time too. discrediting other viable operating systems at the same time was a side effect.

no matter how you look at it, it was an act with malicious intent. If it weren't then why didn't they just put one of those IE only sings and refuse to server them. or just not do it at all.