EU Launches Yet Another Antitrust Probe Into Microsoft

Connor writes "The EU has announced a new wide-ranging antitrust probe into Microsoft's practices of bundling software with Windows, as well as whether its products interoperate sufficiently with competitors' products. 'The first area of investigation will concern interoperability of some of Microsoft's products, including Office 2007, the .NET Framework, and some of Microsoft's server products.' The other prong of the investigation is a response to Opera's antitrust complaint, but will look at other products, too. 'The Commission will also look at desktop search and Windows Live as well in addition to other products. The EC says that its investigation will "focus on allegations that a range of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating system."'"

Comments

gay niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

from outter space

Poor Microsoft...

[Greyfox]

They've been probed by the EU so much their ass looks like ground beef.

Oh wait, it already looked like that...

I am SO never going to get a job at Microsoft...

Re:Poor Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

i didnt know that microsoft was looking for a pizza delivery boy.

Re:Poor Microsoft...

[morgan_greywolf]

i didnt know that microsoft was looking for a pizza delivery boy. They already had one, but he started throwing chairs at people, making threats, and swearing a lot, so they promoted him to CEO.

Re:Poor Microsoft...

[davidsyes]

Ground beef... heheheh Chuck, roast, prime round, round eye, UP CHUCK...? If you equate their leadership to Star Trek's mad admirals, you can start corporate Mad Cow DisEase...

And if you DHCP their ass and bind an address, you'll be bound to grief on their ground beef.

(The Anti-Trust can keep steaming along. I'm pro-DIStrust of them. But, I AM happy that vista runs inside my VirtualBox-equipped PCLinuxOS2007 computer. Installed without too much of an issue, just about 45 minutes, 2 or 3 virtual reboots, and some minor tweaking (turn of UAC, need some vid drivers, need to activate the NIC or find a way to share files tween Linux and Blista...)...)

Re:Poor Microsoft...

[davidsyes]

Say, Greyfox. Nothing like redundant sphincters that can log in and mod down the hell out of people, huh?

Re:Poor Microsoft...

[lenwar]

Well duh, For the PILO-mechanism... Pizza-In Lawsuit-Out Then again.. Lately it appears more like the LIPO system...

Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

Oh no! Did a company make products that go well together? Could it be that they were designed for eachother?

Seriously, afterwards, let's launch an antitrust case against playstation because their platform doesn't play wii and xbox games.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[calebt3]

Could it be that they were designed for eachother That is exactly the problem. Windows needs IE. They used to be independent products, so there is proof that Windows doesn't need to need IE. MS could just as well kept them separate.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[catxk]

"Could it be that they were designed for eachother?" Yes, it could be. It could also be that they design software in a way that unlawfully or unethically discourages the use of other software. Lets see what they find out during the investigation. Microsoft is a powerful company, and as such, just like powerful politicians, they should be under constant investigation.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but why does Oprah care?

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Flipao]

Oh no! Did a company make products that go well together? Could it be that they were designed for eachother? Seriously, afterwards, let's launch an antitrust case against playstation because their platform doesn't play wii and xbox games. The problem is not simply that they make products that work well with each other, it's also that they do it while owning the desktop OS business.

Not to mention their attempts to squeeze the life out of open formats like ODF.

Also, it shows the EU has the balls to stand up to MS and their anti competitive practices, something the US has been unable to do for a while.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

If toyota makes cars, but then decides they want to engineer their own CD players and install them as stock on all their cars, is it against sony, because people will most likely just use the stock cd player? Goodness knows there are manufacturers who make steering-wheel covers who'd be pissed if toyota sent out their cars with great steering wheel covers too.

What microsoft is doing is covering the bases. Yeah, NERO's pissed when MS new OS has burning capabilities in it, but lets face it, interfacing with hardware (a technology like DVD-RW is getting older every day) is a primary function that I'd wonder WHY the OS doesn't already do that. If I bought a computer with no web browser, I couldn't go get opera and install it. It's not like Windows comes with Office- that'd be nice. I just think it's a bunch of whiney babies. Don't like it? Buy a mac!

My guess is that the people here complaining probably already have a mac, which is why I got modded down. I like microsoft. There I said it. Don't mark me Flamebait cause I have an opinion that MAC fanboys don't share with me.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

Oh my god- a pro-microsoft argument that actually makes sense. Let's mark it troll.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[drinkypoo]

That is exactly the problem. Windows needs IE. They used to be independent products, so there is proof that Windows doesn't need to need IE. MS could just as well kept them separate.

This is a ridiculous statement. Cars used to be separate from air conditioning too; people used to have to add a window evaporative cooler to their coupe back in the forties. Just try convincing the majority of people that cars don't need air conditioning! (If you go back even farther, cars used to regularly come without heaters, too, so we can do this all day...

EVERYONE uses a web browser as an OS component today. No, really! Sun has been doing HTML documentation for a long, long time; they used to bundle Netscape 2 for the purpose of reading it (and websurfing.) Microsoft, of course, has been doing it since they integrated Aieee! Apple, naturally, uses HTML fairly liberally.

Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?

Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem. Microsoft forbidding their customers (OEMs) to bundle other web browsers (and other competing products) was. Your statements make it clear that you do not understand the problem.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[MightyMartian]

It's not that they work well together, but that they intentionally break means by which other software can work well with them. Exhibit A is the mutilation of Kerberos.

Nothing like the Redmond Apologist crowd? So what did they give you to turn?

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[jopsen]

Could it be that they were designed for eachother?

Offtoppic but: Actually not, microsoft got internet explorer when the bought another company.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[catxk]

What's with these constant car comparisons? What if my Volvo ran Windows, now there's a disaster scenario for you.

Seriously though, it doesn't make sense to compare preinstalled cd players or AC units in cars with Microsoft's software policies. For one because those preinstalled units were bought from a third party* on a competetive market and are subject to being switched out for a number of reasons, most important price and quality! If Microsoft released an updated Windows version every year or so and everytime evaluated their bundled browser and were prepared to switch if a competitor proved to be cheaper and of higher quality, then no one would complain! Now there is a car comparison for you. Now stop using them.

* There might be cases where this is not true although I doubt it. If there are cases, it would require the "in house" cd player to be competitive on the open market, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense for the car manufacturer to keep the production within the company. Now here's an interesting point: why the hell is IE still being produced!? Microsoft share holders ought to be outraged!

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[calebt3]

When Sun bundled Netscape 2, how tightly integrated was it? Could you remove it if you wanted to? Integrating AC into a car makes sense. Everybody expects a car to have tires, too. You don't see many auto manufactures making their cars dependent on having at least one of the tires made by the auto company.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[webmaster404]

There though is a difference in bundling and integrating. Firefox is bundled in Ubuntu, a quick apt-get remove firefox solves the problem, Konqueror is bundled in KDE I can remove Konqueror with a simple apt-get remove konqueror, although that disables some features of KDE, most programs can still be launched. IE though can't be removed by any normal methods from the OS, and that is one of the primary concerns because even if you do use a third-party browser (Opera, Firefox) you still have the flaws of IE still on your machine. In a car, if you really want to you can replace an air conditioner with another one (even though there really is no need too) but IE you can't. Even though I never have been a Sun customer I am 99% sure that Netscape can be totally removed and a different web browser loaded on with no problem, with IE you can't do that.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[webmaster404]

There are quite a few differences between your analogy and the real thing. It is not impossible to remove the stock CD player and replace it with a higher-quality player and still have the car work properly. If you remove IE from Windows it causes problems according to MS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Internet_Explorer and so it is nearly imposable to remove it. Your car analogy is more like a Linux distribution, you can take just about anything out and replace it and it will still be a vehicle, (probably a car, but if you want to add wings to it and a jet engine and make it a plane, go ahead) but Windows and IE is more like they put the CD player, steering wheel cover, seats, and just about everything else onto the engine making it impossible to remove one component without damaging the engine. Also, unlike in the car business, just about 90% of computers run Windows, so would a company that makes car CD players have a right to complain when 90% of their business is now not available? Yes, they would.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[ashridah]

Removing konqueror doesn't actually remove the web browsing component however. The KHTML component in KDE is part of KDELibs if memory serves. It's really actually very difficult to remove it, more so than removing IE from windows.

Konqueror was just an interface that heavily utilized KHTML, but lots of other programs embedded it as well.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[drinkypoo]

This is NOT AT ALL the argument used against Microsoft, and I wish you would pay a little more attention. You are clearly an unreasoning Microsoft-hater. I am a reasoning Microsoft-hater, but I won't talk about why I hate them right now, only about why trying to claim that they should not be able to bundle IE is stupid.

First of all, your assertion that you can simply remove Firefox from Ubuntu Desktop is incorrect. Oh, you can remove it... but you must remove the package 'ubuntu-desktop', which depends on firefox! This will result in autoremoval of a lot of other packages (if you are doing autoremoval) and the failure to track some updates to ubuntu.

Second of all, Microsoft does not force you to use Internet Explorer for anything but HTML help and where it is embedded into applications. You can turn off web folder view. Of course, you still have to use IE to use Windows Update, but frankly, that is an entirely reasonable restriction.

Third, it is actually possible to embed gecko in the place of IE, although some applications will crap on it. The fact that they do not work the same in all situations is reason enough for Microsoft not to make it too easy to do that - they do not go out of their way to make it difficult.

Your main complaint seems to be that having IE on your system makes it potentially less secure. But making an insecure OS is not (yet?) a crime.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO REPLACE IE WITH ANOTHER BROWSER. It is possible to trap the loading of the embedded IE component and load embedded gecko instead. I have personally patched applications to do this (I don't know if the patcher is still around and/or still works, though) and had them work. However, that browser must behave just as IE does! Similarly, it is possible to replace any and all air conditioning components in any car with those from any other car, but if you expect them to work properly they must work the same way the originals did. This is no different from IE in windows! The car manufacturer does not tell you what you need to know in order to change compressors, either. They do not tell you what the bracket bolt pattern is, so that you can have another fabricated. They don't tell you what the belt thickness is. You have to figure these things out for yourself if you want to alter the system. They don't go out of their way to stop you, although they WILL void your warranty if you start tampering with things!

So basically, you have utterly failed to show any way in which Microsoft can reasonably be restricted from bundling their own software. Once again, the problem was never that they bundled their own software, but that they forbade OEMs to bundle ANOTHER web browser, remove any icons that their install process created, et cetera. THIS was the anticompetitive behavior. Part of the legal response against microsoft was to force them to unbundle certain applications, as a punitive measure. It was not because it was felt that bundling was wrong, but that it was felt that microsoft was not responsible enough to bundle. The truth was VERY different; the right that Microsoft cannot handle is having a monopoly position and being in a position to dicate terms to OEMs. If Microsoft was going to be prohibited from doing something, it should have been one of these things. The USDOJ should have broken Microsoft up into pieces when it had the chance, but as you probably know, the Bush administration effectively pardoned Microsoft by way of Ashcroft.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is a ridiculous statement. Cars used to be separate from air conditioning too; people used to have to add a window evaporative cooler to their coupe back in the forties. Just try convincing the majority of people that cars don't need air conditioning!

Your analogy (like most that will be presented in this article) is flawed because it does not include a monopoly for one of the markets. No one has a monopoly on cars or on air conditioners or people might feel very differently about it. As a result of this, the AC market is not broken so people have no incentive to want change. If there was a single monopolist on cars and AC cost $5000 dollars per car and released a gas that broke other car add ons not from the car maker, then you might have an accurate analogy.

As for convincing people, why would you have to? This isn't about stopping OEMs from bundling IE it is about stopping Microsoft. By your analogy, antitrust law wouldn't stop the car dealership from installing AC into all the cars they sell, even AC made by the car manufacturer. It just stops the car maker from forcing car dealers to buy their AC regardless of which is the best deal or works best.

Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?

Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE. This is illegal in both the US and EU because it undermines the market. As a result of this behavior on the part of MS, Web technologies have been held back nearly a decade and the Web has been intentionally crippled to keep it from becoming a way to bypass MS's OS. At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).

Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem.

This is simply not true. Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law. Bundling a Web browser with any other product on which they have a monopoly is sufficient to violate antitrust law. I know most people don't want that to be the case, but it doesn't change matters at all.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[QuantumG]

And this relates to predatory anti-competitive practices by a monopoly how exactly?

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[kellyb9]

I've seen no evidence that Internet Explorer was actually designed with Windows in mind.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[drinkypoo]

If there was a single monopolist on cars and AC cost $5000 dollars per car and released a gas that broke other car add ons not from the car maker, then you might have an accurate analogy.

Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.

Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE.

Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Computer users WERE asking for a better browser, and OEMs wanted to provide them, but Microsoft refused to allow them to do so. THIS was the truly anticompetitive behavior.

At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).

Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.

Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law.

Bundling is not tying, because force is absent. Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor. Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act; thus trying to gain a monopoly in the Web browser market via a monopoly in the operating system market is not even illegal! The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.

In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE. Of course, IE was also given away free, so it's not like there was any difference there. Netscape gave away Navigator in order to sell their server product.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[immcintosh]

I don't think he misunderstands it at all. The problem, precisely, is that windows needing IE, as he wrote, effectively forces distributors to bundle it. The fact that a number of Windows features simply refuse to work without it (as opposed to any other browser) is the real problem I think most people complain about. I don't think anybody would complain if your browser of course could work as a complete drop-in replacement for IE, but, in Windows, it can't.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[immcintosh]

To further your analogy, when it becomes a problem is when when your dashboard stops working because you decide to only use a third party CD player. That, I think, is makes the analogy a little more accurate.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[nevali]

Indeed, the reason why the EU is making such a fuss is because they realised the now-impotent DOJ just isn't gonna. The DOJ *could have* done something about it, but didn't. Realistically, the EU can't do a whole lot except try to prevent a repeat performance and dish out punishment for proven past disgressions (which they're perfectly entitled to do, as per European law, which Microsoft is bound to if it trades over here).

Insofar as the "biggies" are concerned, though: bundling of DOS, then Windows, then IE, then Media Player, there's not a lot that anybody can do after the fact. The EU has to be seen to be taking steps (preventative and otherwise), so they really have to do *something*. Certainly, web developers the world over still have a bitter taste in their mouths as a result of the bundling of IE, crowbarring it into being a monopoly itself.

The whole "they should be forced to unbundle {IE, Media Player, whatever}" thing really just comes down to "well, do we let them carry on, so that it looks like they've done nothing wrong?".

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Ash-Fox]

The KHTML component in KDE is part of KDELibs if memory serves.

It's a kioslave, deleting a few .so files related to khtml and running 'kbuildsyscoca' (updates various settings in KDE - you could otherwise logout and back in to see the changes) would be enough.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.

Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.

Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.

That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.

Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.

Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.

Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.

MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.

Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;

No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?

The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.

Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.

In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.

It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.

Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Maestro485]

Except it doesn't make sense. Designing things to work together is one thing, but doing so while intentionally making it impossible for anyone else to do the same is what this is all about. The video game analogy is false because although an xbox can't play wii games, you can certainly buy the same title for both consoles (not in all cases, but the fact that it is even possible is what is relevant). Microsoft controls the OS and Office market and leverages this monopoly to deliberately lock out competitors. For instance, I am forced to keep a virtual machine running XP with Office installed to do something as trivial as read a document. Since Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly to make .doc the de-facto standard and then prevented competitors from freely implementing that standard, they are likely violating antitrust laws. Additionally, they recently took it one step further with their attempt to hijack the ISO process and force their "open" standard on everyone in an effort to legitimize the aforementioned behavior.

Lets not forget about the cost of acquiring Windows and Office in order to read a document. Would you consider it fair if you had to pay Microsoft a few hundred dollars to read your morning newspaper?

Maybe you should learn something about what you're talking about before reaching a conclusion.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that there will be many people reading your comments when you post them on the internet?

You don't mind being laughed at?

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[snowraver1]

You don't see many auto manufactures making their cars dependent on having at least one of the tires made by the auto company.

They would if they reasonably could. I wonder how many 3rd parties make replacement wheels for the Hummers that can self-inflate?

More on topic... I think that if MS removed the IE component from windows, it would basically just be reverting to IE6, removing the shortcut, and removing acess to nonlocal resources(ie web browsing, FTP).

What good does that do? I'd rather have the option to use IE if most of the pieces will still be in the system anyways. Someone said it earlier, that the real issue should be MS's insistance in having thier browser as the default (Truthfully, I don't even know if that is true and if it's not true ignore this).

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

When peoples aircons refuse to work unless you are have shell petrol in the tank call me...

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[wish bot]

Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.

Come on Drinkypoo - you're old enough to have seen loads of "IE" only web sites thanks to gems like ActiveX and IE specific bugs. These aren't as common now days, but you still find it all over the place. Loads of the Google labs tools start as IE only, or still don't support Safari. Our office uses some shite intranet system that requires ActiveX. Things are slowly changing, but the EU's point is that you shouldn't be able to subvert a 'standard' by supplying almost everyone in the world with your browser/email client/other_tool AND THEN making it impossible for any other tool to inter-operate or co-exist with it. Fair enough!

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Daniel Phillips]

your assertion that you can simply remove Firefox from Ubuntu Desktop is incorrect. Oh, you can remove it... but you must remove the package 'ubuntu-desktop', which depends on firefox! This will result in autoremoval of a lot of other packages (if you are doing autoremoval) and the failure to track some updates to ubuntu. If so, then that is just boneheaded packaging. I can remove Iceweasel (aka Firefox) from Debian Sid just fine.

sudo apt-get remove iceweasel
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
    iceweasel iceweasel-gnome-support
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 245 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 27.5MB disk space will be freed.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Seahawk]

EVERYONE uses a web browser as an OS component today. No, really! Sun has been doing HTML documentation for a long, long time; they used to bundle Netscape 2 for the purpose of reading it (and websurfing.) Microsoft, of course, has been doing it since they integrated Aieee! Apple, naturally, uses HTML fairly liberally.

Really?

I cant remember when I last used a webbrowser on my webserver... Or my counterstrike server for that matter!

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm no. ubuntu-desktop is just a meta package. You can remove it just fine. However please note that you should re-add it before you do a dist-upgrade (ie upgrading to a newer Ubuntu version) or the uninstall fest you mentioned will happen.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Mr Europe]

But we can also buy the car WITHOUT air conditioning and get a fair discount. Actually in my country more than half of new cars are bought w/o AC.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[kellyb9]

It's called a joke... and register for a /. account so I can laugh at you some more.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

I wouldn't consider it fair to pay Microsoft a few hundred dollars to read my newspaper. So I get Open Office. There are choices. If I wanted the ease of use of MS Office, I could buy it. There's no reason they shouldn't make their software compatible with themselves and make it especially for their own OS, but ultimately it's the consumers choice what they buy. Nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats. Open office reads MS Office documents fairly well.

And your point that some games can be aquired on multiple platforms overlooks the simple fact that some software titles can be gotten on multiple platforms. Heck! I can get MS Office for the Mac! I can run Photoshop where ever I please. I can run Opera on all the major OS's. But I can't get the latest Internet Explorer on mac (I can get an old version). But safari works in windows- so is this really an antitrust issue any more so than the fact that HALO will only be an XBOX game? Not really.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[ais523]

First of all, your assertion that you can simply remove Firefox from Ubuntu Desktop is incorrect. Oh, you can remove it... but you must remove the package 'ubuntu-desktop', which depends on firefox! This will result in autoremoval of a lot of other packages (if you are doing autoremoval) and the failure to track some updates to ubuntu. Not quite correct; it removes ubuntu-desktop (which is correct, because you no longer have all the desktop applications), but that doesn't result in autoremoval of other packages, and its only effect on updates is to prevent new applications being added if they're part of ubuntu-desktop (because as you've asked for one application that's in the bundle to be removed, it no longer tries to maintain the bundle to be complete). (This comment isn't based on firefox in ubuntu-desktop in particular; my personal experience is with the kde usplash package in kubuntu-desktop, but I see no reason why the package removal rules would be different for different sets of packaging.)

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Maestro485]

I can't tell if you really believe all that garbage or if you're just being a persistent troll, but I'll bite.

The Open Office crew had to reverse engineer the spec and you know as well as I do that it's not always perfect. While I feel its perfectly adequate for viewing documents, saving to the .doc format is unreliable, especially for important things like resumes or reports. Put another way, its being forced to pay Microsoft if I want to write something and have someone else read it. If you want the so-called "ease of use" of MS Office and want to buy it then thats your choice. However, its not my choice, but since Microsoft owns the Office market, I am really left with no choice at all. If that isn't having it shoved down my throat I don't know what is. And regardless, absolutely none of this has anything to do with Microsoft making their software compatible with their OS, its about them deliberately making their software incompatible with anything else but their own software. While its usually just fine if someone wants to keep things all closed up, the rules change when you're a convicted monopolist and you use that monopoly (illegally) to leverage a separate market and lock out competitors.

As for the video games, you completely missed the point, although the analogy is imperfect. I was referring to the fact that there is diversity and choice, and that nobody is kept from implementing a given program on any given platform (I know that realistically this is unlikely given the cost involved, but as I said the analogy isn't perfect).

Your rant about running Photoshop or Opera or Safari is irrelevant. Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with that. Also, the fact that they make a Mac version of Office has absolutely nothing to do this either. Shelling out cash to Microsoft in order to accurately and consistently exchange information with other people is what is the issue. This is done intentionally by Microsoft so they don't have to compete. I don't see how you can't understand that.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

Honestly, in order to better my perspective, I play the devils' advocate a lot.

The problem in my argument lies in the simple fact that whether or not Microsoft wants to play by their rules- they've got so much ground that they'd got to. If you had a small company doing exactly the same thing as microsoft, there would be no issue with it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with what they do.

The concept just doesn't scale well, other than to say it only applies with scale.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[JAlexoi]

Are you an idiot or what?
Do you know the definition of monopoly?
And monopoly is not the direct problem here. In your example with cars:
Lets presume that there is only 1 brand of cars from only 1 manufacturer.
That manufacturer decides that they want a piece of automotive A/C pie. So they start producing cars with patented, digitally controlled power connector for car A/C, so they start pushing other A/C manufacturers out of market by leveraging their automobile business.
And hey, that just happens to be antitrust violation.
And if you start saying that they give IE for free, you are stupider than I presumed.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[drinkypoo]

system that requires ActiveX. Things are slowly changing, but the EU's point is that you shouldn't be able to subvert a 'standard' by supplying almost everyone in the world with your browser/email client/other_tool AND THEN making it impossible for any other tool to inter-operate or co-exist with it. Fair enough!

I must have missed the part where it is explained why the EU courts are always right.

Anyway, once again, this is NOT what happened. What happened is that Microsoft refused to allow the distribution of other browsers on computers shipped by OEMs, and THAT is why the other web browsers have such poor penetration, which in turn is why IE became the de facto standard for the web. The OEMs WANTED to ship Netscape alongside of IE but Microsoft told them they'd lose special pricing if they did so. And THAT is the actual case in which Microsoft leveraged their monopoly position to kill other web browsers. Not by giving IE away for free, or supposedly bundling or tying it.

IE was originally a separate download and it was included with the OS only when it was integrated into the OS. At this point it is arguably a portion of the system, and not a bundled application. I'm not sure where the line is, to be honest, but I'm sure Microsoft crossed over into the safe zone there. And it's not tied because it's not mandatory for anything other than maintaining windows, specifically installing updates and making some downloads.

Look, Microsoft is bad. Really bad. I would definitely support breaking the company up into bits and prison sentences for a number of the executive officers who initiated or were complicit in anticompetitive practice. But there are some things that they did that are bad, and some things they did that are not bad. And I mean that in both an ethical and technical sense. Integrating IE with Windows was morally OK (at least, IMO) but technically stupid. Refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers is just plain wrong. Refusing to allow OEMs to ship other operating systems is just plain wrong (although they've loosened up on this since the EU antitrust decision.) There are many reasonable causes to hate Microsoft, why mess with these ridiculous ones?

My point really is that there is no need to have separate rules for monopolies in order for business to be fair. You only need to enforce the laws that apply to all businesses in a reasonable fashion, and start enforcing from the largest to the smallest in order to accomplish that. But corporations in general are not interested in fairness. And that includes various corporate-controlled governments, which means basically all of them. Here in the US, Bush's USDOJ in the form of Ashcroft let Microsoft walk. In the EU they fined them plenty, but that's not enough, now is it? If the corporate officers were simply held responsible, we wouldn't have the problem anyway.

Naturally, that will never happen to Gates. Look for him to become a major player in American politics (if the nation holds together long enough for him to be interested.) He's obviously connected with the right people, the Gates foundation has invested for profit in various industrial sectors (like power) and has big piles of money, in control of which we find Billy himself.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[drinkypoo]

I apologize for not being sufficiently pedantic, and will redouble my efforts in the future. I consider updating to be part of the ordinary workings of the system, since unlike Windows, upgrading an Ubuntu system between major revisions tends to produce a useful system. I have updated my laptop several times starting with Dapper and it's still ticking along nicely (aside from that the latest mysql 5 upgrade seems to have crapped.)

Another one?

[calebt3]

Can anybody tell me what MS has actually been forced to do as a result of anti-trust lawsuits? I don't mean what they have been told to do but rather what they were forced to follow through with. IIRC, they still haven't paid a hefty fine imposed by the EU a long time ago.

Re:Another one?

[Scarblac]

They paid about 500 million euro in 2004, while they were still appealing the decision. Their last appeal was turned down last year.

Also, they made available the specs for the SMB protocol, which the Samba team bought (for about $14k).

Re:Another one?

[BvF7734]

Can anybody tell me what MS has actually been forced to do as a result of anti-trust lawsuits? I don't mean what they have been told to do but rather what they were forced to follow through with. IIRC, they still haven't paid a hefty fine imposed by the EU a long time ago.
Haven't they been forced to hide there Monopolistic ways more carefully now? Possibly find new ways and means of extending their tentacles just a bit further without rousing suspicion? Just a though...

Re:Another one?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Let me think.. There is a version of XP for European markets that doesn't include Media Player. They also published some more detailed specs on the api, and some windows networking protocols. There was also a version that didn't have a Java virtual machine, or was required to have the sun virtual machine, or something like that. Nothing thats been earth shattering. I have a little hard time thinking that any remedy in any court, short of breaking up the company, will have much of a real impact on its market share in any market.

Re:Another one?

[KokorHekkus]

The 2003 fine was paid during 2004 (http://www.news.com/2100-1014_3-5255715.html). The other additional fines most likely have been as well since Microsoft does have a business presence in Europe via Microsoft EMEA located in Ireland I belive (EMEA stands for Europe, Middle-East, Africa). Should the boardmembers refuse to pay then that would land them in court and result in possible personal punishments. No sane business professional would do that no matter how many chairs are thrown on the other side of the atlantic.

Re:Another one?

[tsa]

Nah. 600 million dollars (isn't that what they were forced to pay?) is not a lot for them.

Re:Another one?

[Kugrian]

Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Basic (Internet Edition)
Windows Vista Home Basic (Low-Media Edition)
Windows Vista Home Basic (Internet and Low-Media Edition)
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Home Premium (Internet Edition) ...
Profit!

Re:Another one?

[jimicus]

It's difficult to say.

Sure, they've been forced to hand over cash in fines - but fines aren't terribly effective against companies that can make more money in 3 hours than they are likely to be fined in 3 years.

As far as I can tell, every antitrust suit (in the EU at least) has focused on punishing specific actions rather than preventing general behaviour - for instance, "you bundled media player, don't do it" rather than "you systematically use your existing monopoly in one product to try and establish monopolies in other products, don't do it". That may be because Microsoft isn't an EU-based company, so the EU couldn't break them up regardless of whether or not laws to do so exist on the statute books.

Re:Another one?

[KDR_11k]

The general rule applies but they can only punish MS for specific infractions and right now they're trying to figure out which are actual infractions.

Re:Another one?

[a_claudiu]

It's again the wrong reason for a lawsuit so Microsoft will win again. The problem with Microsoft is not software bundling but API's accessibility and interoperability with other 3rd party softwares. This can be solved by forcing royalty free documentation and API access. Last time EU tried to impose unbundling of Windows Media Player but at the time the only alternative was RealPlayer and they have been bought . The resulting decision was a joke for Microsoft and was forgotten.
Another big problem is hardware/software bundling. I will like to see an injunction for all computer sellers to provide at least one alternative OS for every computer type they are selling for maximum the same price. If this is not possible the computers should be provided "without OS" alternative with a reduced price that is really matching the price paid to Microsoft OS (the minimum of 1/2 from the retail price of Windows).

Re:Another one?

[jimicus]

That would explain rather a lot, but given the pace at which these things happen (we probably won't see a resolution this side of 2010) I don't really see how it can possibly prevent future infractions.

It looks like the company has reached the point where it's effectively immune to any cashflow problems which may arise as a result of legal sanctions, regardless of whether or not it has friends in high places. Ouch.

Re:Another one?

[MacOnFire]

This is such a crock of you know what. The EU constantly picks on Microsoft because it's a company we love to hate and they have deep pockets. What about Apple? I mean, isn't SpotLight "bundled" as part of Leopard? Why aren't they filing probes against an even bigger brother??

Re:Another one?

[NotZed]

But in the os space, Apple aren't a monopoly.

Re:Another one?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is such a crock of you know what.

I disagree.

The EU constantly picks on Microsoft because it's a company we love to hate and they have deep pockets.

No they prosecute MS because MS constantly breaks the law and other companies complain to them, knowing the US courts have been paid off.

What about Apple? I mean, isn't SpotLight "bundled" as part of Leopard?

Sure it is, but "bundling" isn't illegal in and of itself. Leveraging a monopoly in one market into another market is illegal and if you have a monopoly, bundling is one way to do it. Apple doesn't even compete in the desktop OS market, since they refuse to sell OS X to Dell or any other OEM. Apple does compete in the "desktop computer system" market against Dell and HP and Sony, but they certainly don't have a monopoly there, so there is no way such bundling can be illegal.

Why aren't they filing probes against an even bigger brother??

That shows what you know. The EU does have an ongoing probe against Apple, not for their OS since it is not a monopoly, but with regards to their iPod line, which at 70% is close to being a monopoly on portable digital music players. If they decide Apple has enough influence, they will charge Apple for bundling the iTunes software with iPods and for tying it to the iTunes store.

The EU investigates lots of companies for antitrust abuse. If you her about MS being charged more often their are two reasons, one it is more likely to be reported in the news sites you read, and two, MS has built their entire business model on breaking antitrust law and hoping the fines are smaller than the money it makes them.

Re:Another one?

[jo42]

Windows Vista Flying Chairs ScreenSaver Edition (c)(tm).

Re:Another one?

[KDR_11k]

That's mostly because courts are slow and the mega corps are pretty good at stalling them as long as possible. Something that might work would be to make the fines increase as the process drags on (like that 2 million per day fine they got once) and if they're found guilty they have to pay that. Of course the fines stop increasing if the offending activity is stopped.

Re:Another one?

[jimicus]

Something that might work would be to make the fines increase as the process drags on (like that 2 million per day fine they got once)

It didn't work last time.

Re:Another one?

[JeffSchwab]

Even if they pay, how much is really a sufficient disincentive? If Microsoft hadn't been Microsoft, would they still be Microsoft? -- 0x4d653f2020576861742061626f7574202a796f752a3f

Re:Another one?

[MacOnFire]

I see, so what you're saying is that because MS is an easy target, they get most of the attention. Funny, I seem to remember saying just the same thing. Don't bother responding, you're obviously just another biased individual and you comments mean nothing to me.

Re:Another one?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about me? Do me comments me mean anything to your?

Re:Another one?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I see, so what you're saying is that because MS is an easy target, they get most of the attention.

Nope, MS is most obviously and regularly breaking the law, so they are prosecuted for it more often.

Funny, I seem to remember saying just the same thing.

No, I don't think you did in your comment above and didn't in my comment. Work on your reading comprehension.

Don't bother responding, you're obviously just another biased individual and you comments mean nothing to me.

I'm sorry you can't understand my comments. Luckily stupidity is mostly environmental, so you can work on it.

Re:Another one?

[aron1231]

Were you dropped on your head as an infant? Or do you purposely tune out arguments that don't agree with you?

Shudder...

[nog_lorp]

I normally am happy when bad things happen to Microsoft, but I was Antitrust-Probed by aliens once, and I know how it can feel.

Re:Shudder...

[Maxo-Texas]

Eeee-yeewww!

Microsoft tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is more info on EU Launches Yet Another Antitrust Probe Into Microsoft

http://spamslashdot.myminicity.com/sec

Apple's next

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the way their iPod and iTunes don't work as fully with competitors products as their own!!!11

Re:Apple's next

[calebt3]

don't work as fully with competitors products At least they do work. I doubt Zune works with Macs and I would bet money that WMP doesn't.

Re:Apple's next

[kellyb9]

For the 5 people who own Zunes, do you really think any of them are running Macs? Not sure how this is anti-trust, there are boatloads of software and hardware that only work in one environment or another, should we sue all of them? or should we just laugh at them for not further opening up the market?

Re:Apple's next

[GrahamCox]

I would bet money that WMP doesn't [work with Macs].

You lose: Windows media components for Mac

Re:Apple's next

[rat_herder]

Partial score... WMP for mac has been crippled for ever. These components don't work %100, they certainly don't support the WM DRM.

The World

[MyLongNickName]

China protects its own by keeping its currency undervalued.
Europe protects its own through litigation and trade restricting laws.
The Unites States rapes its own through outsourcing, overspending and reducing taxes on the rich.

Which one do you think will be a world power in 50 years?

Re:The World

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one do you think will be a world power in 50 years?

The one that makes software?

Incidentally, if citizens are protected by a weak currency, how are Americans being "raped"? The dollar is falling through the floor!

Re:The World

[FudRucker]

RE:['Which one do you think will be a world power in 50 years?]"

China for sure, the EU? maybe, the USA i doubt it...

Re:The World

[Bellum Aeternus]

Economic strength is reason that the United States it the world super power; military is over-rated and a result of economic strength. American assets are priced in US dollars and as the dollar drops so does the value of the country. Additionally, a huge amount of America's debt is owed in foreign currency and as the dollar drops the debt's value increases proportionally; again making America poorer and therefore weaker. Also, as the dollar's value drops against world currencies (particularly the Euro) foreign reserves are switch from being dollar based to being Euro based; again diminishing the economic might and influence of the United States.

At this point in time the US is so dramically richer than any other state in the world that it doesn't really matter - how ever over the next decade we're likely to see the rise of two new super powers that rival the Unites States: European Union (the confused, sluggish super power) and China (the unified and aggressive super power).

The last time we saw the Unites States challenged it was by the USSR and Japan. The USSR was fundamentally flawed by actually being a totalitarian state which are inherently flawed over the long run. Japan wasn't as flawed, but it inflexible work force (worse than Europe's) has severely limited its ability to compete. In both cases the US system simply out spent and maneuvered them. I don't think the US will be able to do this again unless China's one-child laws begin to damage their economy with the upcoming population drop and Europe's reformist governments get voted out.

As for the article and topic on hand: good. M$ needs to be pushed to be competitive and not just handicapped by overly relying on their OS monopoly. Their censure by the EU will only work to improve the US economy (in the long run) and the EU consumer. Kudos to the EU for having the balls to do this and showing up the US government.

Re:The World

[BrentH]

Damn, does the FUD never end? A small search on Google demonstrates that the EU fines domesitc industries at least as much as foreign ones (I read the official numbers ones, can't find the source now, but most 'income' was from domestic corporations). Just because Spanish Telecom, Fujifilm and Siemens don't reach the/your news, doesn't mean they're fined hundreds of millions of euros.

Re:The World

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's protect our own by sending them MS OS versions without "bundled software". Good luck keeping up with Microsoft, and spending more money to purchase "bundled software" a la carte - or settling for subpar alternatives.

Re:The World

[oliderid]

European Union (the confused, sluggish super power) and China (the unified and aggressive super power).

Beeing European and living in the so called European capital: Brussels. I can assure you that the European Union won't become a super power anytime soon.
The European union is a bunch of independant states with strictly no common foreign policy and a real difficulty to define even the most basic common interest & strategy.Part of this mess are countries live with grandiose illusions (Uk, France), others with a difficulty to accept themselves (Germany), lost in domestic affairs (Italy, Belgium,Spain), eager to enjoy their hard won independance (Poland), focus on regional conflict (Greece), or simply not interested (Netherlands, Denmark, etc).

When I see the current trends, I don't see any European common foreign policy in a reasonnable future.
What would worry me if I was American would be: China and Russia in some ways...India in the long term, the rest (particularly Europe) is sleeping.

Re:The World

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Europe protects its own through litigation and trade restricting laws.

Horse Crap!

Opera is a Norwegian company, who are not EU members. The EU has enforced this law against plenty of EU companies.

Re:The World

[Anonymous Coward]

China protects its own by keeping its currency undervalued.
Europe protects its own through litigation and trade restricting laws.
The Unites States rapes its own through outsourcing, overspending and reducing taxes on the rich.

Which one do you think will be a world power in 50 years?

None of them. They will all be replaced by a world government that God has arranged according to Daniel 2:44. In the book of Daniel, various world powers that had dealings with or affected God's people were compared to ferocious wild beasts. The seven headed wild beast in the book of Revelation therefore represents all human political powers 'under' a succession of world powers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and yes, today's Anglo-American world power which is further singled out in its role today as the beast with two horns like a lamb but spoke like a dragon. The two lamblike horns represents a dual world power just as the Medes and the Persians were a dual world power with the Persian side being more prominent. This description quite fits today's Anglo-American power eh? Goody goody power and yet monstrous like a dragon...

Just wait for the time when the wild beast attacks 'Babylon the Great'. There were plenty of temples to numerous deities in the ancient city Babylon and teachings such as trinities or triads of gods, immortality of the soul, use of images in worship can all be traced back to that place. When the political system of today attacks and destroys religions that teach those false ideas, the curtain will soon fall on every thing that causes division among man be they false religion or politics.

I, for one, look forward to the day when there are no passports, no police, no collusion between big politics, big business and false religion, no injustice and no sickness because when the earth is under the rule of the Kingdom of God, they will not exist.

Re:The World

[ClamIAm]

Europe protects its own through litigation and antitrust laws.

FTFY.

Re:The World

[__aaqvdr516]

Excellent post! Where are my mod points when I need em'! As an American I can tell you that Joe Q. Public doesn't know enough about China and India. I think most are too focused on Iraq to even take notice, or maybe it's Paris/Britney/Whoeverthef#@K. In any case I think China is poised to make a killing in some pretty big upcoming technologies. They're way ahead in battery technology and production. They also provide nearly every Walmart with lead tainted toys(Mattel) and rohypnol play beads(Aqua Dots). Our kids are going to be FUBAR! But anyways...both India and China still have their problems to work out. They're far too numerous to start talking about here though, but bet your ass I'm keeping an eye on them! As a side note, I recently had to call MS support to authenticate my XP install (had exceeded my allowed install #). I was definately patched through to India for that call. I think they speak better english than half of the people in my state.

Re:The World

[Anonymous Coward]

When I see the current trends, I don't see any European common foreign policy in a reasonable future.

And current trends do not include the latest treaty? The Lisbon Treaty explicitly mentions the states commitment to a common foreign policy. It won' be in place tomorrow but headway is being made. A High Authority of the EU concerning foreign affairs is a new post created in the Lisbon treaty.

I can't speculate what you mean with reasonable future, but bear in mind that the EU doesn't need to have a uniform foreign policy on all terrains to play. Uniform economic policies already play an important role in the world. Countries and/or unions entering into trade agreements with the EU (common market). Trade wars with the US about matters like steel and genetically modified foods.

A lot of Europeans are sceptic about the EU, but people tend to forget the EU is the first of it's kind. For an institution that requires countries to give up sovereignty it's been an insanely successful endeavorer. Think of the EU what you will, but don't be so naive to follow popular trend and underestimate the EU.

Re:The World

[oliderid]

And current trends do not include the latest treaty?

It includes examples:
1. Ex-Yugoslavia civil wars where strictly no common policy has been found and the military intervention (without the US) was a joke
2. Last Iraq war. (confirmation of the Ex-Yugoslavia trend)
3. the UK is facing diplomatic tensions with Russia (the murders of Russian dissidents in Britain). Have you see anykind of solidarity lately? The last sign of "solidarity" was Sarkozy congratulating Putin for his election.
4. A petty fight around the function "should it be a foreign affair minister?"
5. and the list goes on

I was an europhile, I'm still is, but It doesn't mean that I must fool myself.

It ties back to making a profit

[KublaiKhan]

Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation. On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.

I do rather wish, though, that it was the QC department rather than the legal department that got all the funding for these ventures; the strategy of 'sue everyone and who cares about the product' didn't seem to work too well for SCO, and with the rather notable--especially in Europe--rejection of Vista, M$ would do well to take note of the problems with their product. Legal muscle and dominance of the marketplace will take you far, but such things are no excuse for honest innovation (or, if you can't do it honestly, buying it or stealing it from someone else--anyone heard of any actual production plans for those nifty tabletop computers from a few months back yet?)

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[Zoxed]

> Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation. On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs...

Spot the anti-government bias in that statement !! I would describe it as maximizing profit whilst *keeping within the law*. Break the law and you can not be surprised when the legal arm of government comes down on you.

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[donaldm]

Like it or not Microsoft tries to work within the laws of each county they do business in and they have a "illusion" of lawyers to make sure they don't cross the line too much so if at the end of a long dragged out court case they do have enough money to pay the fine, cry crocodile tears, state they will work with the commission more closely and pledge they will never do it again.

Sorry I could not resist "illusion" since the list was not actually IMHO appropriate although "greed" came close. Still Microsoft lawyers do seem to practicing some form of magic. :-)

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, Microsoft fuck people over and try to get away with whatever illegal activities they can. On the other hand the forces of good try to counter the evil. Good on the EU. Now the USA also needs to have the guts to fight for freedom.

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[vfrex]

Perhaps the best way to return value to the shareholders would be to break up into individual companies. That is, the OS part of microsoft will be its own company, the business productivity part of MSFT will be its own company, etc. Shareholders will get to own shares in all pieces, and Microsoft will not be able to leverage its monopoly in one crucial market to impose standards on the others.

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Perhaps the best way to return value to the shareholders would be to break up into individual companies. That is, the OS part of microsoft will be its own company, the business productivity part of MSFT will be its own company, etc. Shareholders will get to own shares in all pieces, and Microsoft will not be able to leverage its monopoly in one crucial market to impose standards on the others.

That is a short-term solution because the OS part and the Office part and the browser part have monopoly influence on their respective markets, with the OS part having the most lock-in. I think breaking the company up is a good idea, but at least two of the new companies should have the rights to the OS, with new patents and code forking as they go forward. This would instantly restore competition to the market.

Imagine you're a buyer for Dell or Ford. Instead of deciding if you should buy WinXP or Vista from the OS part of MS, you could ask both of the two new companies to bid on the contract to supply your OS of choice, with the cheaper one getting your cash. Imagine that! ...MS having to compete for the lowest price.

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[vfrex]

The OS wouldn't have nearly the lock in without the monopoly of the office component. The office component has no reason to remain exclusive to Windows, and will do a better job of seeking markets in alternative operating systems.

Re:It ties back to making a profit

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The OS wouldn't have nearly the lock in without the monopoly of the office component. The office component has no reason to remain exclusive to Windows, and will do a better job of seeking markets in alternative operating systems.

Umm, I disagree. MSOffice is already available for OS X (and many people feel that version better than the Windows version). If there are two things WINE on Linux runs well those are IE and MS Office.

The application lock-in on Windows is not MS Office. It is all the games, niche applications, IE, and all the applications users have already purchased which will be non-functional.

Waiting for the diplomats.

[seeker_1us]

How long is it going to be before Bush sends US diplomats to intervene on Microsoft's behalf again?

Re:Waiting for the diplomats.

[kellyb9]

My guess is sometime before January 20, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Re:Waiting for the diplomats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all the countries in the UE kiss US ass.

enough?

[Ogive17]

Does anyone else think enough is enough? I'm not an expert with Opera or Windows but from what I've read Opera seems to work well with Windows (some will claim even better than IE). To me this sounds like the creators of Opera are not happy their market share isn't has high as they'd like, so they hopped on the "blame Microsoft for the world's problems" bandwagon and are hoping the Socalist leaning EU will give them some handouts.

Will the EU keep pecking away at M$ until the company is forced to break up and become a non-factor... then go after the company that takes it's place (google)?

Re:enough?

[dvice_null]

> Does anyone else think enough is enough?

They have laws and they try to force everyone to obey those laws. Every time Microsoft has done something that would be illegal in most countries, it itself has said that it will obey the laws of the place where it operates. So Microsoft should be quite happy with this. EU is just helping them to obey the laws.

Microsoft has a lot of business and they might have broken several laws. Should rest of these crimes be forgotten simply because they were already judged?

I have no doubt that EU will handle the issues professionally and Microsoft will only get what it deserves. If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

Re:enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the EU keep pecking away at M$ until the company is forced to break up and become a non-factor... then go after the company that takes it's place (google)? Until Microsoft start competing on merit rather than relying on the hogtied consumer to keep aiding them, yes. At least I hope so.

Re:enough?

[morgan_greywolf]

So do you think that Microsoft should be allowed to disobey whatever laws they see fit? No matter what you think of their products, you have to admit that Microsoft plays dirty. Nobody likes it, especially not the EU.

No one here, not even the EU, is asking for the destruction of Microsoft. What's being asked of Microsoft is plain and simple -- compete on the merits of your product, not on your ability to illegally maintain a monopoly. Is that too much ask?

Re:enough?

[calebt3]

No one here...is asking for the destruction of Microsoft

You must be new here.

Re:enough?

[Ogive17]

That's fine, I'm all about punishing them for breaking the law. My perception is, and I could be wrong, that these smaller companies are now begging for table scraps because they feel like they didn't get enough of the pie to begin with. In the US capitalism is "suppose" to be the system that rules them all... if your market share sucks then you need to improve your product or marketing. It's a different story in Europe. I just am not keen on the idea of trying to destroy M$ through the courts so that your product is there to fill the void. Maybe it's karma on M$'s part... but when will it stop? Do they do anything to limit google's explosion or will they wait until it's too late there?

Re:enough?

[Ogive17]

That's not my point, if M$ did something against the law, punish them. Opera filing suit seems to me to be grasping at straws. They don't like being the red-headed step child that get's no love (like IE and Firefox do) so they will file a lawsuit in a locale that has already ruled against M$.

Re:enough?

[Fweeky]

To me this sounds like the creators of Opera are not happy their market share isn't has high as they'd like, so they hopped on the "blame Microsoft for the world's problems" bandwagon and are hoping the Socalist leaning EU will give them some handouts. The antitrust complaint is primarily about Microsoft's atrocious standards support; standards which Microsoft themselves had a hand in creating are almost invariably poorly supported, with both little coverage and massive bugs which basically go unfixed forever. In the mean time, web developers end up wasting huge amounts of time and effort working around problems, often to the detriment of support for other browsers. If Microsoft actually had to compete in a market for web browsers they'd never get a look in; they'd actually have to make a token effort to keep up with the rest of the industry.

Instead they're abusing their position and holding the industry back. I think every web developer on the planet would like to see them get a kick up the backside . It would make a change from swearing at them in CSS/HTML/JS comments.

The bundling issue I'm more ambivalent about; making them unbundle WMP didn't exactly achieve much, but perhaps the processes surrounding it were more valuable than the unbundling itself. Still, I hardly agree it's got anything to do with Opera wanting a "handout", whatever the fuck that means.

Re:enough?

[jopsen]

if your market share sucks then you need to improve your product or marketing. It's a different story in Europe.

Yes, when the free market is not free anymore, we need to do something... The free marked needs to be controlled in order to stay free!
Otherwise we'll only have big multinational cooperations left...

Re:enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

from what I've read Opera seems to work well with Windows (some will claim even better than IE)

That's the point. Opera does work "even better" than IE, but for some reason having the better product isn't enough in this market.

their market share isn't has high as they'd like,

More specifically, their market share isn't as high as it would be if they were able to compete fairly. Simply put, if there was free trade in browsers then Windows would have 5% market share and IE would have &lt 2% market share; if that. Enough will be enough when Microsoft has paid compensation for everybody damaged by the fact that they have more. That means every company hacked; every shareholder (e.g. in Netscape) robbed; every gpensioner who's pension was reduced; every PC owner forced to pay Microsoft tax. Every person who's computer has crashed (yes; if there had been competition in the OS market, you probably would not have lost your thesis). Or put another way, Microsoft should probably pay compensation several times the value of the company.

the Socalist leaning EU

What is this strange statement meant to mean? The EU is fundamentally a free trade organisation. It's a primarily right wing / liberal organisation dedicated to the interests of business. Why not just come out and say "the pedophile leaning United States of America" or something equally stupid?

Will the EU keep pecking away at M$

If the EU is serious, they should stop pecking and start taking out decent Lion sized bites. Pecking gets us nowhere. Unless maybe they go for the eyes.

Re:enough?

[kellyb9]

To me this sounds like the creators of Opera are not happy their market share isn't has high as they'd like It's really not a matter of their market share being as high as they'd like. Well, in a way it is, but the underlying issue is that users of MS aren't given a choice. They blindly accept Internet Explorer as the only option in the browser market because thats what came with their brand new, shiny computer. I doubt they're saying get rid of IE on the machine, although that would close up a few hundred MS vulnerabilites.

Re:enough?

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, Opera Software is a Norweigan company, operating in Olso. While Norway is not technically in the EU, it is part of the 'European Economic Area.' As a Norweigan company, Opera Software is guaranteed the same four economic freedoms as companies that are in EU countries. So there is some legitimate EU interest here, to be sure.

Re:enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So Microsoft should be quite happy with this. EU is just helping them to obey the laws."

Your post was good, and point was clear, but this sentence made me want to cry.

Re:enough?

[dobster]

THIS IS INSIGHTFUL? Wow, where have the nerds gone?

Re:enough?

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Well in the case Opera you have a company that does deliver a good and a solid product, Opera Browser, but having a good product or not is not the question in here. The question is about usage of Windows, as an operating system, to make Internet Explorer a dominant browser by bundling it tightly and having it as a obligatory component in Windows. Now this question is old and Microsoft is in fault, as judged by the US anti-trust court, unfortunately Microsoft wasn't forced to make Internet Explorer non obligatory, so we still have the Internet Explorer problem. Now what Opera has noted is that although other browsers like Opera and Firefox can be installed by user or OEM, having Internet Explorer bundled still in operating system leverages Microsofts position in market.

Basically: as Internet Explorer comes with Windows, it's dominant browser, as it's dominant browser all sites and content are tailored to show up in the Internet Explorer as good as possible. The problem is that as Internet Explorers standard support is very broken, sites and content are tailored with hacks and tricks to work with it, as a result of this sites and content are not generally made standard compliant, and thus other browsers don't work 'as well' as they can't reproduce hacks and tricks that are intended to Internet Explorer. What Opera is claiming is that Microsoft has purposely made Internet Explorer not work with standards, to make sure sites are first made to work with them alone, and then with other browsers. So the logic is, Microsoft uses Windows to leverage Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer is left broken to strengthen its position in market.

Now I have to say I can understand that logic as web developer fully. It's just so frustrating to make sure content works with Internet Explorer, there always some mysterious problems. However, it will be a quite hard job to find evidence that Microsoft actually has done all previously described in an act to crush competition, but then again that is the job of European Commission. It should also be noted that if Commission would fine evidence and would want punishment for Microsoft, EU still has rule of law and Microsoft can have their day in court. This is not about US vs. EU, it's about making sure monopolies don't abuse their position, and that markets have fair competition.

Re:enough?

[KDR_11k]

Opera complained that IE implements standards so badly that it made many web designers code to IE's broken renderer instead of using the standards everyone else uses. If IE wasn't bundled with the OS that broken renderer would have murdered its marketshare long ago.

Re:enough?

[h2_plus_O]

but the underlying issue is that users of MS aren't given a choice. They blindly accept Internet Explorer as the only option in the browser market

Am I the only one for whom this argument sounds completely stupid? When most of my friends use firefox and when I use opera, I have a hard time buying the notion that users of MS aren't given a choice. It's not like it's complicated to go download a browser, for God's sake.

Re:enough?

[1001011010110101]

Still, they added hooks everywhere (i.e. windows update, and lots of other shit) in order to say they REALLY REALLY need MSIE. I think they already lost that one (bundling) is US courts, but the DOJ dedided to sit on their thumbs and give them a couple slaps in the wrists(hide icons? wtf is that?).
So, for EU courts it should be like fishing in a barrel. Opera should have done this a couple years back.

Re:enough?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's not my point, if M$ did something against the law, punish them.

That's what they're doing.

Opera filing suit seems to me to be grasping at straws.

Most antitrust suits start with a lawsuit or complaint from a competitor. This is the normal way antitrust action begins.

They don't like being the red-headed step child that get's no love (like IE and Firefox do) so they will file a lawsuit in a locale that has already ruled against M$.

Sigh. Opera's main business is selling a browser for use mostly in embedded devices like smart phones. They're making less money at this than they could be because of MS's abuse of their monopoly, which has resulted in all browsers other than IE being artificially "broken" for a significant number of sites. Are you telling me if you were in business and another company were breaking the law in a way that was costing you money, you wouldn't do anything about it (like ask the courts to look into it)?

Re:enough?

[h2_plus_O]

Be that as it may, that still doesn't make the "consumers have no choice" meme any less ridiculous. If anything, the presence of a browser in the distro makes it easy for them to go get any number of high-quality free browsers online, and the fact that everybody and their dog has not just a second browser, but toolbars and plug-ins for their browsers, points out the fact that users aren't the helpless lamers we all seem to think they are.

Re:enough?

[1001011010110101]

The point is, consumers have no choise. You cannot uninstall MSIE. Several OS functions use MSIE exclusively and are designed not to work with standards. So, consumers can install other browsers, but they are not able to completely replace MSIE because MS worked in order to avoid it.
I'm not sure how it ended, but in the desktop search space it was quite similar. They flatly refused to uninstall, only allowing other products to run IN ADDITION to theirs, so, if you didn't want the dead weight, you would just use their product instead of, for instance, Google search.

Re:enough?

[LynnwoodRooster]

More importantly, say MS is forced to remove IE from Windows in the EU - how the heck does the average user then go and download Firefox or Opera? Use an FTP client? Well, MS will get forced to unbundle that too...

After seeing the effects of the forced Windows XP-N (without WMP included) racking up a massive 1,800 worldwide sales, well, I think there are some basic misconceptions in the "MS is teh sux0r" crowd. Apparently for most people, IE and WMP are acceptable, and when given a choice - as demanded by that roiling crowd - most people will choose to use IE and WMP. XP-N sales kind of prove the point...

Complain about standards compliance, sure. But the way to push for standards compliance isn't to remove the very item that the public wants, and make it nearly impossible for them to access (no browser, no FTP client, how do you get Firefox or Opera?). MS allows manufacturers to preload other applications now, nothing that I know of is stopping Dell, HP, Compaq or others from preloading Firefox or Opera.

Perhaps - just perhaps - HP, Dell, Compaq, and the other manufacturers have found their customers prefer IE or WMP?

Re:enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, say MS is forced to remove IE from Windows in the EU - how the heck does the average user then go and download Firefox or Opera? Use an FTP client? Well, MS will get forced to unbundle that too...

I don't know about America, but in this country anyway any user can very easily get hold of Firefox or Opera on a CD by visiting a newsagent and buying just about any sort of popular IT magazine.

After seeing the effects of the forced Windows XP-N (without WMP included) racking up a massive 1,800 worldwide sales, well, I think there are some basic misconceptions in the "MS is teh sux0r" crowd. Apparently for most people, IE and WMP are acceptable, and when given a choice - as demanded by that roiling crowd - most people will choose to use IE and WMP. XP-N sales kind of prove the point...

That is just an observation on the power of marketing to an uninformed audience ... it says nothing about the culpability of a monopolist attempting to use its monopoly position to attempt lock-in.

The acceptable remedy here is not to remove IE7 or WMP but rather to either: (a) force Microsoft to make available that same software for other platforms (ie. Mac and Linux) at the same price, or (b) force Microsoft to make IE7 and WMP fully complaint to royalty-free open standards (ie. W3C, Ogg, etc) as well as Microsoft-only formats and protocols.

Re:enough?

[Ogive17]

My how the term "troll" has become diluted over the years. I thought individual opinions were valued on /., not punished. A troll post would have been me saying 'well if opera didn't suck so much maybe they wouldn't have this problem.'

I guess I better get use to burning away my karma since I play the devil's advocate in most cases simply because seeing 100 like-minded posts modded +5 insightful gets old.

Re:enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Professionally? Snort.

I work inside MSFT. The last complaint, we repeatedly asked 'what more do you need documented?' 'Is the documentation so far living up to what you want' and we got a lot of 'yes, just fine' back. Then we finish and the next day the EU slaps us with a huge fine because the documentation is absolutely unacceptable?! Obeying the law is easy if it's written down somewhere, if it's 'we'll tell you later if you did anything wrong', it's a farce.

A New Reality For Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are so use to the past decade of Microsoft getting away with pretty much anything they wanted and effectively walking away from any legal or government intervention that it is hard to grasp that that is no longer the case. Microsoft is getting a lesson right now from the EU like someone who just got pulled over for a speeding ticket and speeds off and gets pulled over again. The fact that you just got pulled over a few minutes ago means absolutely nothing.

There is a certain, and strange, Microsoft fanbase that is roughly of the mindset of "Microsoft is always teh winner". They might not even like Microsoft products but somehow identify with the company as somehow being badass and that "Bill Gates will just buy his way out of this with pocketchange LOL!" type sentiments.

Tough times ahead for that crowd. Look for much crying about how life isn't fair from them.

Re:A New Reality For Microsoft

[jorghis]

I dont think I have ever seen an MS fanboy talk like that.

Currently there are over 75 posts in this topic and several are pro-MS. (although obviously they are in the minority and modded below comments like yours) Can you point to a single one that has the sentiment "Bill Gates will just buy his way out of this with pocketchange LOL!"?

Re:A New Reality For Microsoft

[Amorymeltzer]

There is a certain, and strange, Microsoft fanbase that is roughly of the mindset of "Microsoft is always teh winner". Well, Microsoft WAS the winner as far as pretty much everything computer-related was concerned for almost all users. The past ten years or so has seen hugely increased Apple adoption, as well as a number of products that are distinctly NON Microsoft that are beginning to compete. Google, Firefox, all the rest. Instead of the giant Microsoft conglomerate, there are a half dozen or so specialized competitors that, while never coming near to combating Microsoft, can whittle away at one specific aspect of their overall package. MS is still the evil empire, but far larger portions of the users are beginning to realize that there are other options. When there was nothing to compete with, there was no problem. But now that the little guys are around, it's an issue when Microsoft stomps down on them.

Re:A New Reality For Microsoft

[jellie]

I disagree, and argue that while the EU is doing everything that it can to force Microsoft into compliance, it is limited to what it can do and how quickly it can do so. Obviously the EU has to follow the laws, but it took four years for Microsoft's appeal of the earlier EU decision to stand. What will prevent it from violating antitrust laws and take over the next Netscape or RealNetworks? Five years later, when the case is finally decided, they'll pay some tiny penalty that is a mere pittance compared to their available cash.

To make an (admittedly terrible) extension to your analogy, it's as if Microsoft was speeding and intentionally ran an opponent over. When the police pull them over, they say, "Oh, I did what? My bad. Here, I'll pay the fine." And then do it again.

Keep in mind that many view Bill Gates as a true philanthropist for his humanitarian actions. While he's not on the level of Gandhi or Mother Theresa, both of whom had their own flaws, he is considered as a champion of children, health care for the poor, etc. I despise him and think he's a fraud, but most people think I'm just angry or something.

I believe the only true threat to Microsoft's power was the US antitrust suit some 10-odd years ago. The judge had the power to break up the company, though he chose not to do so. He did penalize the company, but since then it seems like the Bush DOJ has done nothing but support MS. I applaud the EU for what they've been doing, especially for standing up to the attacks from the US government. But without any sort of help, they are really limited in effecting change.

Re:A New Reality For Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think I have ever seen an MS fanboy talk like that.

I swore I'd never post a /. meme, but honestly, "you must be new here."

Good EU!

[Fri13]

This is just great! If we get Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer, Windows shell (GUI) and few others ripped off from Operating System, we would get a great platform.

No, this dont mean that Microsoft could not sell them or develope those. Just that those users who dont need a Microsoft own webbrowser or a WMP. Can remove them. OEM manufactures can install Opera or Firefox or OTHER webbrowser instead IE and VLC or any other mediaplayer instead of WMP.

How many remembers what is definition of Operating System?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

"An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an interface used to access those resources. An operating system processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems. Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software."

And what we have left if we remove all applications what dosn't remove any of these definition parts? Just pure OS.

It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.

And those who needs just windows OS, would get Operating System and nothing more. They could install just their games to it or software what are needed and use computer happily.

Re:Good EU!

[plague3106]

Well, I was ok with your post until you quoted the definition of OS. If you're going to play that game, than Linux shouldn't come with any applications either.

Re:Good EU!

[calebt3]

Ask and you shall receive.

Re:Good EU!

[onecheapgeek]

I agree completely. Furthermore, I am stunned (STUNNED, I tell you!) that Windows Live could possibly be designed to work with Windows exclusively. This is a terrible crime that must be *yawn*

Re:Good EU!

[jZnat]

Linux doesn't come with any applications. Go ahead and download the Linux kernel at kernel.org, and tell me, do any versions of the Linux kernel provide any additional applications? Nope.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't come with any applications. But the bundled distributions do.

Re:Good EU!

[RightSaidFred99]

Uhh, you do know the "definition" of a product isn't any kind of logical way to limit the product, right? Nobody cares what the "definition" of an operating system is. People expect to be able to install an OS (or purchase one pre-installed) and to be able to do some core set of things with the computer in a standard way. This definition has changed over time.

It's ridiculous that people think MS should include less in Windows and that this would somehow help consumers. Consumers expect to be able to login to any Windows machine and run IE. They may want to use another browser, and if they know how they can certainly do so. But there is some core set of functionality people want from the OS. Playing basic media files, browsing the web, copying files over the network, simple text editors, utilities, etc...

If you don't want to use the stuff that comes with the OS, install different stuff.

Re:Good EU!

[plague3106]

I didn't receive anything RH, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. all still exist. Remember, if you sell and OS, you CAN'T provide anything else. No more one stop shops, so to speak.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it's called "GNU/Linux".

Re:Good EU!

[calebt3]

You asked for bare Linux, and you can get that if you want to. IIRC, MS is allowed to sell WMP bundled with XP, but they need to have a non-WMP version available.

Re:Good EU!

[msuarezalvarez]

RH and Ubuntu do not sell OSs (they can't: they own neither the OS itself nor the apps). They sell a service.

Debian does not sell anything.

Re:Good EU!

[RobBebop]

They offer you the chance to send them $2 in exchange for mailing you a CDs with their release on it. This is "selling it".

Furthermore, they would be within the scope of the license to package and charge you to download their distribution (as long as your payment included the right to obtain source code).

What they would NOT be able to do, is stop somebody from setting up an FTP site and giving away the copy they bought to everybody and anybody who wanted it. Thus, Red Hat users can get CentOS instead of purchasing the "Official" releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Re:Good EU!

[plague3106]

I don't have a problem with that, you're the one claiming that an OS shouldn't include anything but any OS. So any installation media which allows you to install the OS shouldn't include anything else. Or are you retracting your previous post?

Re:Good EU!

[calebt3]

I feel that bundling is fine, and I am pretty sure I haven't said otherwise. Unnecessary integration is what bothers me.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

and that is why Linux has about a 2% desktop market share.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more Ford Escort's on the road than Mercedes-Benz CL 600's. Therefore, the Ford Escort is better?

Re:Good EU!

[Ash-Fox]

and that is why Linux has about a 2% desktop market share.

How do you measure Linux desktop market share?

Re:Good EU!

[Bungie]

And what we have left if we remove all applications what dosn't remove any of these definition parts? Just pure OS

Yeah that was sort of what it was like in the days of MS-DOS and Windows 95. It sort of sucks to have to obtain and install every component individually. Personally, I find it sort of handy that it comes with tools for things you might need to do like browse the web or watch a movie. Plus OEM's already do have the ability to install custom software like the Google Toolbar and it you actually end up with a ton of extra crap that you don't want. Not only that but where do you draw the line on which components to ship as part of the base OS? You could ship Windows without Internet Explorer, but without MSHTML.DLL a lot of programs won't work. Same with a lot of common things that programs expect, like ADO and DirectX. No one really ships a bare OS anymore, cause it sucks.

Re:Good EU!

[1001011010110101]

Actually, bundling isn't fine (i.e is ilegal) when you have a monopoly on one product, and use the monopolist position as leverage to get a monopoly in other market/product.

Re:Good EU!

[Jesus_666]

Actually, that might make sense. If I remember correctly, the NT kernel used to be a rather elegant design with some very useful capabilities. Similarly, NTFS is one of the better file systems out there, with outstanding ACL support.

Just imagine if they released a variant of the NT kernel, sans Internet Explorer, Vista DRM bullshit and in-kernel GUI. Maybe return the POSIX layer to it and you start to have something a decent operating system might be built around. (It doesn't even have to be a 'nix clone, although having a ready-made userland certainly would get it on its feet faster.)

Most of the crap we get from Windows comes from parts that either are or should be in the userspace. The kernel alone with a decent userland on top of it could become something geeks actually like to work with.

Re:Good EU!

[GaryPatterson]

It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.

That's what the judge ruled in the original US Microsoft anti-trust trial. The penalty was changed on appeal though. I think it became a massive fine plus a change in the way they sold to vendors. Over time that morphed into no fine, no penalty and the occassional statue of Bill Gates in US gov't buildings.

It would've made for a much more level playing field and probably avoided much of the EU trouble Microsoft have had since. It wasn't palatable at the time though, so here we are.

Re:Good EU!

[codemachine]

It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.

That was the original ruling against MS in the DOJ case (in fact the break up might've been into 3 companies), but unfortunately two bad things happened:

1. Judge Jackson spoke the truth to reporters about the reprehensible conduct of MS executives during the case. MS cried that he didn't like them and wasn't being fair, forcing a new ruling due to this possible bias.

2. Bush got elected. The DOJ had a very strong case and already had a guilty ruling - all that was left to do was come down hard on MS. Bush didn't allow them to do so. Instead, MS pretty much got to write their own settlement.

The one government that had the most power to change Microsoft's ways blew it almost 10 years ago. The entire industry has suffered because of it. Including probably Microsoft, which likely would've been better off in the long run had they broken up.

Re:Good EU!

[babbling]

Linux is an operating system kernel, not an operating system.

Re:Good EU!

[calebt3]

You are just mostly paying for S&H and the price of the disc, case, labeling, etc.
One could call that a service.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't come with any applications. But the bundled distributions do.

The applications that are bundled with the Linux kernel in a given Linux distribution are available to any and all Linux distributions. Many of them (yes, the exact same applications) are available also for BSD, Mac and even Windows.

Applications such as Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, OpenOffice, Abiword, VLC ... are all available for Windows. Even the new KDE4 desktop (and with it KOffice 2, K3B and Amarok) will soon be available for Windows.

Where is Microsoft Office for Linux? Where is IE7 for Linux? Where is Microsoft .Net for Linux? Where is Windows Media Player for Linux? Where is directx for Linux?

Microsoft does not make any applications for Linux (it does make a few for Mac, but then again Microsoft owns shares in Mac). Microsoft is therefore trying to use its desktop monopoly to restrict your viable options for choice in Operating Systems.

If Microsoft were a legitimate competitor in the software industry, competing as it should on the relative merits of its software products, and a new platform started to gain traction ... then any normally competing software company would make its products available for that new platform. Just as a CD can play on the CD player from any manufacturer, and a TV can receive and render signals from any TV broadcaster, so should it be for software desktop applications and media formats and document formats. There have been several attempts to make a workable cross-platform application "shell" - so that applications need be written only once to work on any desktop platform ... Java is the most successful of these ... and Microsoft did its level best to kill Java. There is an ISO standard for Office document formats ... that Microsoft is doing its level best to kill. There are standards for Web content ... that Microsoft does not adhere to. And so on and so on.

That sort of anti-competitive behaviour is called "anti-trust". It is an illegal practice ... even in America.

Re:Good EU!

[orkysoft]

They aren't monopolies, and aren't being punished for abusing monopolies.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

How was that modified insightful? Go ahead, try installing that without a distro. Linux is a lot more than a kernel. These days, when you say Linux to someone in casual conversation, your more likely to be referring to a Linux distro. Just like when you say Windows, you're referring to the Windows distro everyone sees as opposed to ntoskrnl.exe which is the kernel. Last time I checked, ntoskrnl.exe also didn't come with any applications. However, every single distro comes with applications (ls, ln, cat, etc).

And the heavier ones, like Ubuntu, come with even more apps preloaded than Windows (and you can't, from what I could tell during the install process, remove them until after it is installed).

I just switched to Linux because I was tired of Microsoft crap, but don't just spout nonsense.

Re:Good EU!

[Atti K.]

RMS, is that you?

Re:Good EU!

[Weedlekin]

"How do you measure Linux desktop market share?"

It's fairly easy to measure _market share_, because markets are by their nature commercial entities that measure success by the number of items sold. The problem Linux presents is that market share doesn't provide a good guide to actual usage numbers when dealing with something that can be both legally and very easily obtained without having to pay for it. Another factor to consider is that unlike for example Windows, server and desktop versions of Linux only really differ in terms of what the people using them choose to install (and of course, what not to install), so it's quite difficult to pigeon-hole Linux usage by category, although the Linux _market_ (i.e. commercial distros and machines sold with Linux pre-installed) can be categorised quite easily.

Re:Good EU!

[Anonymous Coward]

For that matter, "Windows" doesn't provide much in the way of applications either. Well, except Minesweeper and Solitaire. But that's just so you can get the MCSE certification.

-M

Re:Good EU!

[Fri13]

GNU/Linux is much more difference because:

a) GNU/Linux ain't monopoly
b) And cannot be a monopoly because there are _many_ corporations who distribute GNU/Linux
c) GNU/Linux is open source, every single person or corporation can distribute (sell or give) it.
d) GNU/Linux is pure OS and distributions are whole software systems where is GNU/Linux OS+software
e) No one owns Open Source as Microsoft owns Windows XP or Windows Vista.
f) Anyone can package own distribution or build own software for GNU/Linux and sell own software with that distribution or for those distributions.

Open Source is so important thing on this case because it just prevents that no one cannot get monopoly on that OS market. Different thing in example is, if Adobe ports Photoshop to GNU/Linux, packages own disribution and sells this whole thing as Adobe "OS". They can get monopoly on graphic software area but not on OS area, because they cannot take away GPL license.

Just like if now Red Hat would get monopoly, CentOS is exactly same as RedHat but it would be free to use and everyone could use their hardware where RH is and get support from somewhere else.

GPL and Open Source just prevents that one corporation can get monopoly because that corporation cannot control source code.

Re:Good EU!

[Fri13]

Yes, bundling mediaplayer to OS to get in mediaplayer market, is illegal if company has example > 85% share of OS market. (If company has ruled to be a monopoly by goverment etc).

Apple isn't doing anything illegal if they bundle image manipulation program to their OS and it is better than photoshop. It's not illegal even if that program would not get removed from OS. Why? Because Apple doesn't have monopoly. Then if on next year Apple gets monopoly on OS market, they dont need to remove that image manipulation application if they dont use it as advance. But if then Apple adds non-linear PRO video editor to their OS, they use OS market as advance and it is illegal.

If Apple would like to play sure for that image manipulation software dont bring any problems to corporation, they would remove it from OS and have it as Add-on on same media but it ain't installed by default. Then they could do what ever they want because every user has option to install that image manipulation application or get another one. And this keeps competition open for everyone.

So if Microsoft would now like to get away from these EU accusations, it would be enought just to un-bundle Internet Explorer and Windows mediaplayer from OS. They can come with install media but should not be installed by default but later, like if user goes to add/remove panel and clicks from there IE + WMP to have installed. This way user/OEM manufacture can sell/add/remove any other sofware instead IE/WMP/Windows Movie maker etc and all other smaller companies could make deals with bigger OEM sellers.

Reasons why just Microsoft is under looking glass? Because Microsoft is monopoly. If one company can control market how it likes, it's bad for everyone. That's why many things are allowed by non-monopoly companies but not for monopoly.

What would happend if Microsoft would need to open API's for everyone (not even single secret API) and IE + WMP and other would be add-ons what would need to be installed by later? It would force Microsoft to develope those applications much more to have better reasons to get their applications installed.

Now when Microsoft has OS Monopoly, it has bundled and integrated many applications to their OS (integrated to kernel or to libc) and has build many technologies based them, Micorosoft has got that way a big foothold to many different markets, like web browsing and DRM music market's (not so big as Apple). And by those technologies, Microsoft can force user to install Microsoft Windows OS.

Example, if user want to use WMA DRM files, it is needed to own Microsoft windows because windows mediaplayer and use it. There would not be problem if windows media player would be available for any other OS's like GNU/Linux, BSD and MacOSX and WMP would be allowed to remove from Windows too. But then MS would need to develope that application more and push resources and lots of money there and it could slow down money flow to shareholders and they would be unhappy and big boys could possible get fired etc etc.

So mayby everyone could now thing how things would be if OS market share would be on current state but instead Apple invented iPod/iTunes, Microsoft would done that and have same market share as iTunes/iPod has with Windows Mediaplayer and Zune.....

Every PC would come with Windows (like now) and with Windows Mediaplayer (like now) and how easily it would be to get those market? Has Microsoft get good start with Zune on portable mediaplayers where iPod rules? No... Has GNU/Linux got good start with desktop market's? No....
What if Apple would start selling iPods as same start as MS started to sell Zune, would it be clear that iPod gets so big market share because it is so much better or is there reason that Apple started that so long time ago? I thing it would be samekind war as HD DVD and Blu-Ray.

Later on, Microsoft will fall and it might be BIG one or it can be nice one where MS market share drops somewhere 50% and then MS can again do what they want, if they just can be competive for others... mayby not....

Re:Good EU!

[plague3106]

Integration is important; you can do things with integrated systems you just can't with disparet ones. I'm making my living right now writing very tightly integrated applications.

Re:Good EU!

[knivesx11]

The Federal Government dropped there case against Microsoft, not because they agreed or disagreed with the practices at hand but because it would have been a lengthy anit-trust trial that does not easily fit the definition of a monopoly according to sherman antitrust laws and it would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars and there would be appeals for decades. Anti-competative business practices are illeagal but that doesnt mean they constitute a monopoly.

Trap link - "Slashdot spammer"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trap link - "Slashdot spammer"

Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[jorghis]

I dont get this whole idea that including applications with your OS is somehow evil. There are certain things that the average user expects to be able to do with a PC out of the box. Things like browsing the internet, playing a media file, etc.

(warning car analogy ahead)

It is kind of like telling auto manufacturers that they cannot include built in AC, CD player, or any other ameneties with their cars because it kills the third party market even though these are things that consumers expect to come with their cars.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[taniwha]

nothing - so long as in the process you are not leveraging a monopoly - the problem isn't including apps, it's using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[jorghis]

And how on earth are they supposed to include the apps their users expect without "using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors"?

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[themacks]

Have you ever tried to uninstall IE? or WMP? Its rather difficult, pretty much locked in. It would be acceptable if OEMs could select what software to include. Instead of being forced to use the Microsoft version. Thats how they use their monopoly.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[uglyduckling]

The reality is that they can't, and that's the difficulty of abusing monopoly powers - you can end up in a situation where the monopoly business can't do everything that the non-monopoly competitors might be able to do. Not only have Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer and Media Player with Windows (which is fine), in the past they have abused their monopoly by penalising companies that install competing browsers and players when selling machines (which is an abuse of monopoly). If Microsoft had left the market open by allowing OEM sellers to do as they please, they probably would have been able to continue bundling so long as it was possible to remove the bundled software and use something else.

Now that abuse of monopoly powers has been established, some sort of remedy is needed if e.g. Europe feel that competition in web browser and media player markets is desirable. One remedy is the 'default programs' tool that is included with Vista and was added in a service pack to XP. Probably the fairest solution would be for Microsoft to provide a freely distributable ISO (they could call it 'Genuine Advantage Pack :-)) on their website with all the software they would like to bundle with Windows, including trial versions of Office etc.. It would then be up to OEMs (e.g. Dell) whether they wished to supply that CD, pre-install the software on the computer, or use some other third-party software as they saw fit. That would be a level playing field and not disadvantage consumers in any way.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[blair1q]

Your car analogy is 100% dead-on. Microsoft should be allowed to pack any app into its OS that it wants. Provided you or a third-party accessory vendor has the right and access to modify it to remove that app and make your add-on accessory work, the way you can with any car.

I've never had any trouble running third-party browsers, media players, or apps on a Windows system (far less trouble than I usually have getting things installed and working on Linux, in fact). Although they are never as well-integrated as they could be, that is almost always the fault of the application designer, who failed to read or comprehend the documentation for the API.

This is different from 5-10 years ago, when the documentation for the API was nonexistent or (deliberately?) obfuscatory. If Microsoft is still making it impossible to write apps for the OS with public documentation, then sure, Microsoft should be punished. But they shouldn't be hamstrung just because Opera developers are lamers.

Firefox kills Opera, IMO. I don't see them pestering the government to harass their competitors. Maybe because it also kills IE.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

The car manufacturer can't give too many things away before they go under, as material goods cost money for each and every item they give away for free... so they do end up charging for them (not much choice).

Microsoft, OTOH, bundles "for free" (ie. they develop it once, and then it doesn't cost them any more to include it as many times as they can possibly do so)... not exactly the same, but the analogy is still decent ;)

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Microsoft insists everything is part of the frame of the car.

Oh the Radio? That's part of the frame. If we removed the radio, the car would fall into two pieces. The radio is an integral part of the frame!

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[ddrichardson]

Of course users should have certain functionality out of the box. The problem is that IMHO that should be responsibility of who ever I buy the PC from.

To use your own analogy, Windows is the engine - does that mean that Microsoft should be able to pick the AC and CD player that Ford puts in the car? And when I buy that car, what if I don't want AC?

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great if Microsoft provides the applications that they do. Although im a linux person I like IE 7 and Word and that stuff.

The problem is if you can't easily remove the stuff you don't want. A nicer kind of upgrade system would not hurt. Maybe a signed repository of other applications?

In fact, why doen't windows come with more (or more powerful) applications? The shell sucks, so does notepad. And linux actually does come with a nice firewall.

Can't find anything i like about this Windows XP computer, except the music on the hdd. :)

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[pembo13]

it's not the inclusion, it's the fusion

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[madcow_bg]

And how on earth are they supposed to include the apps their users expect without "using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors"?

By not using your monopoly OS.

Actually, do you know how antitrust laws first came into being? It is actually a tale about oil. The Rockfeller family with their company American Oil owned the whole american market and a good share of the world's. The politicans realised that they could bring down the government and the whole country, so they created the laws and ordered a split.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[sjames]

I've never had any trouble running third-party browsers, media players, or apps on a Windows system (far less trouble than I usually have getting things installed and working on Linux, in fact). Although they are never as well-integrated as they could be, that is almost always the fault of the application designer, who failed to read or comprehend the documentation for the API.

In keeping with the car analogy, what you have successfully done is install replacments alongside the unremovable componants. This is like a car with the radio as an integral part of the frame. You CAN install a different radio, but you'll have to leave the OEM one in place and find somewhere else for the new one.

periodically, you'll find that the new radio has been mysteriously disconnected and the OEM re-connected to the speakers.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[mjwx]

It is kind of like telling auto manufacturers that they cannot include built in AC, CD player, or any other amenities with their cars because it kills the third party market even though these are things that consumers expect to come with their cars.

Wrong, why do people have so much trouble developing good car analogies so here goes.

It's like the auto manufacturers preventing you from removing the factory installed CD player(IE) so you can install a third party CD stacker(Firefox, Opera, Safari), if you remove the factory fitted part the car refuses to start although the CD player has no actual function in the ignition the ignition is dependent on the CD players presence.

There's a big difference between being removed and being removable, most people just want IE and WMP to be removable. I hope this has cleared things up a bit.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[jorghis]

The key difference here is that in a car you need to be able to remove the old cd player in order to put the new one in. With windows you can just install firefox, change your default browser and you are good to go even though the old browser is still there. (and dont complain about disk space, in this day and age the amount of space IE takes up is negligable)

The reason you cant totally remove IE isnt because MS is secretly hoping you will change your mind and start using IE again. Its because windows needs an html renderer to function correctly and they are trying to prevent the users from shooting themselves in the foot. There is nothing sinister going on there.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I dont get this whole idea that including applications with your OS is somehow evil.

That's because you don't understand the law or the reasons for it. Including applications with an OS is no more illegal than firing a rifle is illegal. It is just that in some cases (when you're abusing a monopoly) it breaks the market and thus we've passed a law making it illegal, just as firing a rifle into another person kills them, and we've passed a law making that illegal. It isn't including applications with an OS that is illegal, it is abusing a monopoly in one market to break free trade in another market that is illegal; just as it is not firing a gun into another person that is illegal, but murder and assault by any means that is illegal.

There are certain things that the average user expects to be able to do with a PC out of the box. Things like browsing the internet, playing a media file, etc.

Probably 80% of computers come with an OS pre-installed and nothing stops the OEM from including any applications they like, including those made by Microsoft, so this doesn't affect those users. Probably 15% are bought by businesses who use automated install tools so this does not affect them. The only people this might inconvenience is people who buy whitebox PCs and install a boxed copy of Windows and who want to use one of those currently bundled applications. If those people aren't competent enough to get or make a copy of IE on CD to install, then they also probably aren't competent enough to install an OS in the first place.

It is kind of like telling auto manufacturers that they cannot include built in AC, CD player, or any other ameneties with their cars because it kills the third party market even though these are things that consumers expect to come with their cars.

No it isn't. Like 99% of all analogies in this thread you have tried equate the behavior of a company that does not have a monopoly in any market bundling products, with a company that does have a monopoly bundling. They are not the same at all, which is why one is legal and one is illegal.

Try your analogy with something that is a monopoly, like your local power distribution company. Suppose they decided to go into the air conditioner market as well. Suppose they stopped selling the service of hooking up electricity to new houses and started selling a bundle which included power hookup and a "free" air conditioner, for only $8000 more than their old power hookup service. Further assume you're in the AC selling business. Does that sound fair to you? After all, some users can still install solar panels and buy an air conditioner from you. Other customers could throw away the air conditioner they got from the power company and buy one from you. If you were in the air conditioner sales and installation market, you wouldn't complain about that, would you?

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And how on earth are they supposed to include the apps their users expect without "using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors"?

By offering them as free downloads and by convincing OEMs that your product is the best so they should install it for their users... you know the same as every other software vendor on the planet that doesn't have a monopoly to abuse.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is kind of like telling auto manufacturers that they cannot include built in AC, CD player, or any other amenities with their cars...

Yes, but there are multiple CD player and AC manufacturers and car makers select between them.... Thats the difference....

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[trey_killer]

*DING DING DING*

you win a prize taniwha

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[the_womble]

The problem is not at the consumer level: I have no problem with consumers getting more software pre-installed.

The problem is that manufacturers are forced to pre-install the MS stuff. They should be free to decide whether they want to sell PCs with Windows + IE + WPM, or Windows + Firefox + Mplayer (with a GUI frontend), or Windows + Opera + Realplayer.

To take your car analogy further, imagine there was a single company with a 90% market share for car transmissions and they had a strong hold on the market. Suppose they would only sell transmission to car manufacturers as part of a bundle that also included wheels, brakes, a stereo and air-conditioning. That is what MS do.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

When carmakers integrates the radio tightly you are forced to
any of the ( usually drastically inferior and more expensive)
radios offered by the carmaker. Many carmakers units don't
even have an USB-connector, most(many) third-party radios
has USB as "standard".
This is what vendor integration of higher function gives You:
less functionality at a higher price.

Same goes in the computer business.

Next question.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[howlingmadhowie]

imagine you had one car manufacturer who made 99% or all cars. they do not produce navigation systems, so there is a thriving market for these and many companies compete in this market. then one day the car manufacturer decides to include a navigation system with its cars and make it use a subtly different sort of map. suddenly, everybody who buys a new car already has a navigation system and so doesn't need to spend money on one from another company. gradually, the maps you get in the shops fit the navigation system most people have (the one from the car manufacturer) and cannot be read properly on navigation systems from other manufacturers. all other manufacturers go bankrupt and the car manufacturer now has control of the market.

to understand why the car manufacturer did this is difficult. what does a car manufacturer gain by controlling the navigation system market? very little. however microsoft had a huge amount to lose by not controlling the web browser. the writing was on the wall that the web browser could become the perfect vehicle for distributed applications and microsoft had to make sure that only happened on its terms.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[CmdrGravy]

Well I don't know what you have in your car but the stereo which came built into mine was made by Blaupunkt. The car its self is made by Nissan. I would imagine that most car stereos are actually built and supplied by car stereo manufacturers rather than the automaker themselves. In fact an awful lot of the components for cars are not built by the manufacturer themselves but bought in from other manufacturers. In effect car makers really do support a large 3rd party market. Having had a number of large auto companies close down in the immediate area lately the one thing you see is that as well as the actual auto company there was a huge number of other manufacturers more or less dependant on producing equipment for that auto maker to buy off them.

If a car manufacturer were to design a car where using another companies tyre caused your air conditioning to break then it might be valid to compare them to Microsoft but the car industry has a lot of healthy competition and no real monopolies so that sort of behaviour would not be tolerated by the customer and is why Microsoft should be punished when it tries to do that sort of thing and abuse its monopolistic position.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[redxxx]

Doesn't even need to be downloaded. Just include them on install CD/HDD, and let the user choose what to install when Windows first runs. Add to it a kinda robust package manager that can connect to the internet(which people would be forced to see at least once, so they will be likely to look to it), and now not only do they get around all the anti-trust bundling stuff, but they still get to leverage free(as in beer) products and services to their customers.

Could even turn it into a revenue stream, by letting closed developers place products in it, for a fee of course.

Similar systems have done a lot of make linux easier to use. MS's efforts would be different enough that patent issues wouldn't be much of a concern(It's MS anyway, rite?). It gets them out of the anti-trust stuff, while still letting them have some control over product preference. Less educated users get a better experience, because they would have easy access (theoretically) reliable and trustworthy software, ideally much of it with little additional out of pocket cost. Of course they could data-mine what type of software their customers are looking for, which they can't do when they use Google.

They'd eventually get sued to force them to allow Mozilla and other large developers to include software, but because they could still charge a reasonable and fairly uniform fee it would still keep a lot of FLOSS out if they choose to. It would probably become yet another vector for naughtiness, but that seems true of everything they make, and really should be avoidable.

Not that it will happen of course, but I think it could be made to their benefit and that of their customers--without being too evil or anti-competitive.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Doesn't even need to be downloaded. Just include them on install CD/HDD, and let the user choose what to install when Windows first runs.

Actually, that would still be illegal unless all competing products were included in this package as well.

Add to it a kinda robust package manager that can connect to the internet(which people would be forced to see at least once, so they will be likely to look to it), and now not only do they get around all the anti-trust bundling stuff, but they still get to leverage free(as in beer) products and services to their customers.

MS probably would add a package manager, but again if it comes with MS's repository pre-configured, then it has to come with competing repositories pre-configured as well to be in compliance with the law.

Could even turn it into a revenue stream, by letting closed developers place products in it, for a fee of course.

This isn't direct bundling, but it is still tying. If a competitor has to pay a fee to get their product easily downloadable, but MS gets to do so for free because they are the OS creators, then MS is still unfairly leveraging that position.

Similar systems have done a lot of make linux easier to use.

Agreed, default package mangers would be a boon to both Windows and OS X.

Not that it will happen of course, but I think it could be made to their benefit and that of their customers--without being too evil or anti-competitive.

Hopefully the courts will prevent them from implementing an anticompetitive version of this in the first place.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...the problem isn't including apps, it's using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors

Actually it's using your monopoly to not compete with other app vendors, but to win market share based upon artificial problems introduced to other vendor's apps using your monopoly.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[redxxx]

Honestly, 'illegal' is kinda stretching the definition of the laws the exist. I'm not totally sure of the EU, but things like this, at least in the States, are a tad more gray. Weighing the effects on the user, competition and effects on the company in question. Being expected to follow certain principals, is a bit different some finely described bit of tax code. It's closer to fair use, and most know what a mess that is.

In addition, here at least, the courts are rather incapable of actually preventing much in the way of software being implemented. I don't know of any restraining orders regarding anti-competitive practices and a new service or product, that prevented said product from initially going to market. These courts and commissions are not exactly geared to be proactive. If Microsoft was doing it in response to a court order, they could have oversight. Otherwise, I doubt there is much they could or would do.

The main issue that the courts have found with bundeling is that the software can not easily be removed by vendors or consumers. If such a package system was used, it is rather implied that this would not be an issue. The laws are not just about leveraging one's position, but doing so unfairly. This would be a lot closer to fair. Probably more so than expecting windows to be the only operating system to be distributed without a media player, browser and other fairly essential bits users would require out of the box, which is what you seem to be advocating. Honestly, 'illegal' is kinda stretching the definition of the laws the exist. I'm not totally sure of the EU, but things like this, at least in the States, are a tad more gray. Weighing the effects on the user, competition and effects on the company in question. Being expected to follow certain principals, is a bit different some finely described bit of tax code. It's closer to fair use, and most know what a mess that is.

In addition, here at least, the courts are rather incapable of actually preventing much in the way of software being implemented. I don't know of any restraining orders regarding anti-competitive practices and a new service or product, that prevented said product from initially going to market. These courts and commissions are not exactly geared to be proactive. If Microsoft was doing it in response to a court order, they could have oversight. Otherwise, I doubt there is much they could or would do.

The main issue that the courts have found with bundeling is that the software can not easily be removed by vendors or consumers. If such a package system was used, it is rather implied that this would not be an issue. The laws are not just about leveraging one's position, but doing so unfairly. This would be a lot closer to fair. Probably more so than expecting windows to be the only operating system to be distributed without a media player, browser and other fairly essential bits users would require out of the box, which is what you seem to be advocating.

This is stupid

[Pojut]

And I will tell you exactly why I think so. Microsoft releases a retail version of Windows. Included in this retail version of Windows is Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

Number 1. Both of these are FREE PROGRAMS. You can download any version of IE and WMP for free directly from Microsoft (and yes, I am aware they don't retain older versions for downloading). You won't see Internet Explorer or WMP sitting on Best Buy's shelves.

Number 2. After installing windows, the first two programs I install are Media Player Classic and Firefox. Both free, legal alternatives. If someone is upset with Microsoft including those other two programs in there, don't use them. Yes, they take up a minimal amount of disk space...but if you are complaining about 50-100 MB of disk space when you can get a 1 TB drive in a 3.5" model for roughtly $250-$300, you are just looking for something to complain about.

Number 3. Those who don't know any better obviously don't care that they come included...and if they do care, they will do the research required to download and use something else.

Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you?

All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity. People that use windows don't care that they are using windows. If they care enough that they are using windows, they will look at what the other alternatives are. "But...but...but...I HAVE to use office, it's what my job uses!" That's your company's fault for using Microsoft products...no one forced them to. Just like no one has forced you to use Microsoft products.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

IE is an issue because it's incompatability with the rest of the web meant that for a time, there were many webpages that required IE to function. That one si a nonissue these days. Opera can't complain much either, since it was Firefox that forced them to start giving the product away.

WMP is probably the biggest one still around, it defaults to media formats that you have to pay microsoft to be compatable with (and which contribute nothing but security vulnerablities over older and non proprietary formats.) It also includes music stores that I'm sure are being leveraged improperly, but as long as iTunes remains the 600 pound monopolist in the music category, that one can't be seen as actionable to my understanding. (IANAL)

Office, again, is incompatable with most competitors, though OO seems to be reducing this as an issue. (And if you think you need office at home just because you're work uses it, you need brain check 90% of the time).

I'm adding my own complaint though, which is that Microsoft bundled a newsreader with Vista that, too all appearances, cannot be used to read anything but microsoft approved sources of news. (MSNBC, as well as various bits of 'news' from microsoft that amount to little besides ads). Even if I'm wrong and traditional news feeds can be used, they must have gone far, far out of their way to hide the feature.

--
One time sig: I want a lisence plate with a really obscure abbreviation, like IANAL.

Re:This is stupid

[keeboo]

And I will tell you exactly why I think so. Microsoft releases a retail version of Windows. Included in this retail version of Windows is Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

Number 1. Both of these are FREE PROGRAMS. You can download any version of IE and WMP for free directly from Microsoft (and yes, I am aware they don't retain older versions for downloading). You won't see Internet Explorer or WMP sitting on Best Buy's shelves.

Those programs are "free"? I mean, can I legally install in my Linux box and run under Wine?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIR and according to the EULA, starting from IE5 or IE6 you are allowed to install IE only into MS Windows.

Number 3. Those who don't know any better obviously don't care that they come included...and if they do care, they will do the research required to download and use something else.

Well, most do not care, no matter how badly trapped they are (or will be) in MS technology.
The problem is that there are people who care, and that people is being artifficially being prevented to use (or use properly) the technology they prefer because MS do not follow standards as they should.

Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you?

All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity. People that use windows don't care that they are using windows. If they care enough that they are using windows, they will look at what the other alternatives are. "But...but...but...I HAVE to use office, it's what my job uses!" That's your company's fault for using Microsoft products...no one forced them to. Just like no one has forced you to use Microsoft products.

Are you a hermit?
I ask this because, if you're not, it means you must be able to exchange information with the rest of society.
The moment you graduate and start looking for a job (you need such thing in order to be able to afford things like.. food, for example) you will be asked (or expected), most of the time, to send your CV in .doc format. -- What choice are you talking about?

About that regrettable Amiga (a great machine in its time BTW) comment of yours, I can say this: Today is not the 1980s and interoperability is not a luxury, it's an expected thing from technology.

Re:This is stupid

[Pojut]

Those programs are "free"? I mean, can I legally install in my Linux box and run under Wine?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIR and according to the EULA, starting from IE5 or IE6 you are allowed to install IE only into MS Windows.

Can you legally install iTunes on Linux?

Well, most do not care, no matter how badly trapped they are (or will be) in MS technology.
The problem is that there are people who care, and that people is being artificially being prevented to use (or use properly) the technology they prefer because MS do not follow standards as they should.

The answer to this should be simple. If you prefer Microsoft technology, use Microsoft products. If you don't prefer Microsoft technology, don't use their products. Period.

Are you a hermit?
I ask this because, if you're not, it means you must be able to exchange information with the rest of society.
The moment you graduate and start looking for a job (you need such thing in order to be able to afford things like.. food, for example) you will be asked (or expected), most of the time, to send your CV in .doc format. -- What choice are you talking about?

Granted, they aren't as prominent, but there are plenty of companies that use Linux and/or Open Office (the company that I work for being one of them) And once again, is Microsoft holding guns to folks head's? Because if they aren't, those companies CHOSE to use Microsoft, just like the companies that they work with CHOSE to use it.

I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have deplorable practices. I'm saying that people that feel trapped by it have only themselves to blame by adding to Microsoft's coffers.

About that regrettable Amiga (a great machine in its time BTW) comment of yours, I can say this: Today is not the 1980s and interoperability is not a luxury, it's an expected thing from technology.

Right. That's why Blu-Ray should play in my Wii, my cell phone should be able to use the same memory card as my digital camera (which, admittingly, some do) and my gas-guzzling car should be able to be filled with diesel. Right?

Re:This is stupid

[dobster]

Yes, indeed insightful, this guy has abolutely no clue of real life. You sir, are a moron and a wonderful example of US superficiality, go for president!

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you legally install iTunes on Linux?

Yes.

Re:This is stupid

[Pojut]

Woo! Moron '08!

But seriously though...I don't approve of the way that Microsoft conducts business. I never once said that I did. I was merely making observations. If, in making those observations, my total lack of legal knowledge when it comes to monopolies comes to the forefront...then I guess it sucks to be me.

Re:This is stupid

[keeboo]

Can you legally install iTunes on Linux?

Does your bank allow online transactions only with iTunes? Depending where you live and which company (or the gov't) you work for, you have no choice on which bank to use.

Granted, they aren't as prominent, but there are plenty of companies that use Linux and/or Open Office (the company that I work for being one of them) And once again, is Microsoft holding guns to folks head's? Because if they aren't, those companies CHOSE to use Microsoft, just like the companies that they work with CHOSE to use it.

There are companies who were able to do such a thing but, from what I've seen, things went either to the limited lowest common denominator, or they defaulted to something more comfortable to Unix-alike OSes.
Now what I really wanted to know is the magic formula to operate Windows OSes and "the rest" at the same level, making things like partial migration possible.

Really, let's take the Windows network sharing for example. You can use Samba, which is a great project. But the Samba cannot simply change the SMB/CIFS modus operandi because, well, it's defined by MS. It is implemented such way to allow compatibility with Windows, that's the very point of Samba.
Because of that you have horrible things like, when using Samba with LDAP, the Windows passwords are stored in a parallel field (requires read-access and all, a kludge) because Windows authenticates its own very way and cannot use LDAP's mechanism for that. And because of that you cannot (safely) allow Samba authentication for servers not maintained directly by your department since all the users' hashes must the exposed to that external server.

Compatibility problems go well beyond Word and IE. MS made Windows systematically incompatible with everything else, and is comfortable keeping things that way.

Right. That's why Blu-Ray should play in my Wii, my cell phone should be able to use the same memory card as my digital camera (which, admittingly, some do) and my gas-guzzling car should be able to be filled with diesel. Right?

There's no huge majority in any of those formats, there's not monopoly, just inconvenience (although it would be preferable to have a single standard for any commonly used technology such as memory cards).
It would be nice to fill your car with anything from gas to sewer water, but the nature of this problem is distinct and does not involve exchange of information.

Re:This is stupid

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Number 1.

Do the developers work on them for free? Nope. So MS pays those developers somehow right? Where does that money come from? Gee from sales of a bundle of Windows and a bunch of software. Just because the cost is hidden does not mean they are free. And of course, none of this has anything to do with MS's monopoly abuse, since it doesn't matter if they are free.

Number 2.

It doesn't matter if you can download alternatives. Can the Firefox team force every Windows install to include their product? No. Thus it isn't a fair competition. Why can MS do that? Because they have a monopoly. Thus, they're using their monopoly to gain an advantage in a different market. That is what is illegal.

Number 3.

Maybe users are ignorant and don't care... that is irrelevant. Apple cares and they're competing with one of those products. The Firefox team cares and they're competing. Are you so self centered that you can't see it from the perspective of a software developer being unfairly competed with?

Number 4.

Linux and OS X do not have monopoly influence according to the courts, MS does. Your analogy is flawed because Sony does not have 90% of the portable game system market.

All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity.

Yes, having to explain the basics of antirust law to the clueless does seem pretty stupid. I wish you people would take Econ 101 before you bother making assertions.

Re:This is stupid

[pizzach]

Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you? It's a little bit more fault than you might think. Making windows the only game in town to play games on has long been Microsoft's strategy.

1. DirectX was made to pull people away from OpenGL which makes games MUCH harder to port. To accomplish making people use DirectX, the made Microsoft make the DirectX tools much better and more complete than using OpenGL-mabobs.

2. Microsoft bought the last great Mac Developer Bungie.

3. The Xbox was originally made to funnel developers to Windows.

4. I hate lists that I can't think of more than three things.

Re:This is stupid

[oconnorcjo]

unfortunatelly both of those programs were designed to drive people to MS only products. 1) At one time MS wanted people using active X and IE (which fortunately failed because IE and active X was a such a security disaster). Active X could only run on windows. 2) WMP was meant to drive the internet toward .wmv and MS's sound and video formats. Sure you might be able to pirate the codecs for WMP but it is illegal and unfair competition. MS wanted to dominate the internet by controlling the future of sound and video on the internet. Fortunately the EU is trying to nip it in the bud. It is not bad for MS to have a web browser or music player but those products should only be able to play/run open formats. and if MS wants to create a format, then they should provide those formats as open standards that anyone can use/implement. If you own an OS monopoly, you should not create formats that are not interoperable with other platforms because that is leveraging your monopoly to lock people into your monopoly unfairly.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer may be free software but it is very difficult to uninstall Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I specifically asked to not install Outlook Express during my Xp install but its still there, it still starts up.

I think the problem is that you cannot uninstall these microsoft programs (and that they are useless and insecure).

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Number 1. Both of these are FREE PROGRAMS. You can download any version of IE and WMP for free directly from Microsoft (and yes, I am aware they don't retain older versions for downloading). You won't see Internet Explorer or WMP sitting on Best Buy's shelves.

How exactly can I have them for free without having paid MS anything (such as the price for Windows)? I can't and that's why they're not free (and even MS admits it in the EULA since according to it you're required to own Windows). You pay for them when you pay for Windows since MS don't develop software for free. In the EU it is illegal to claim that you give something away to your customers for free if there are any strings at all attached to it and thus they view it as MS forcing you to buy IE when you buy Windows (and thus preventing you from using that money to buy a browser by somebody else). Everybody needs a web browser nowadays and if MS weren't a monopoly they wouldn't include their own since it's inferior compared with Firefox and Opera - that is, if another company too made a 100 % compatible operating system, MS and that other company would offer a different web browser bundled with the OS (a good analogy is aircraft - engines are even more crucial to aircraft than a browser is to an OS but despite that neither Boeing nor Airbus make their own engines - instead customers can choose engines by companies that specialize in manufacturing them and thus do it much better than Boeing or Airbus).

Number 2. After installing windows, the first two programs I install are Media Player Classic and Firefox. Both free, legal alternatives...

I think what I stated above addressed this too.

Number 3. Those who don't know any better obviously don't care that they come included...and if they do care, they will do the research required to download and use something else.

Regardless of what you know, you cannot get Windows for a lower cost if you decide to use a different browser than IE and that's the problem. The money MS spends on developing IE comes from somewhere.

Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...

It's not about anybody being at fault or so - the thing is that if you consider the product "consumer OS that can run 99.9% of apps that you find on store shelves", Windows is the only game in town, i.e. a monopoly.

you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you?

Nobody is suing anybody. The EU are investigating whether MS have broken the law. Neither Sony nor Amiga is a monopoly but that is irrelevant, the EU are investigating if MS are using their monopoly to force customers to use their products instead of their competitors' (i.e. whether the products compete on merit or if MS get an unfair advantage since they've made the OS).

In further news....

[Anonymous Coward]

... Steve Jobs announces that OS/X will now include a full function CAD drafting system called iDraft. Throngs outside the Apple offices literally throw their money at Jobs.

.NET Framework?

[Bryansix]

If I have this correctlty, ASP.Net is executed server side 100% of the time and returns HTML and javascript to the browser. How would this not work on every single operating system and browser out there? Am I missing something? I mean Office 2007 you have a point; but .NET?

Re:.NET Framework?

[pwilli]

"ASP.NET" isn't the same as ".NET-Framework". While the ASP.NET is (as you described) completly OS-independent for the client, the .NET-Framework is more like the JavaVM an runtime environment for .NET-Applications, which are executed on the clients system.

Re:.NET Framework?

[Kalriath]

ASP.NET, you're right. The "problem" here is the client side .NET framework, a large beast of a JIT compiler with a base framework of classes - much like Java. Someone probably thinks it's killing Java market share (it's not, but if you ask me anything that kills Java market share has to be good) and therefore is illegal. It's a load of bullshit, really. Just the EU looking for a way to get some more free money. Office 2007 I disagree with too - it's not bundled. What exactly are they going to fine them for there? Making an Office suite at all? Wow. Watch out OpenOffice.org, you're next to be fined for making an office suite!

Re:.NET Framework?

[moderatorrater]

You don't have it correctly. .NET can be used to code desktop apps, and the code only runs under windows (Mono's pretty good, but not perfect).

Re:.NET Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the code only runs under windows... Imagine that, code written for an OS only runs on that OS. Why not investigate MS's use of ATL and MFC while they're at it?

Re:.NET Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to assume everyone is on the client side. In either case:

Bundling .NET server stuff with Windows Server inhibits competitors like ColdFusion (Adobe), PHP (OSS), JSP (Sun) etc.
Bundling .NET client stuff with Windows XP/Vista inhibits competitors like Qt (Trolltech), Gtk (OSS), Java (Sun) etc.

Re:.NET Framework?

[surfingmarmot]

"If I have this correctlty, ASP.Net is executed server side 100% of the time and returns HTML and javascript to the browser. How would this not work on every single operating system and browser out there? Am I missing something? I mean Office 2007 you have a point; but .NET?" First, is you RTFA and the EU press release they are clear they are just investigating--not filing charges...yet. Second, .NET must required for many services that clients need not just HTML to a browser and it is encumbered with IP patent protection so no one can use it without MS permission. If what you say is true and .NET is of trivial importance, Miguel de Icaza and Novell have been wasting their time with Mono and Moonlight. What don't you go tell then--I am sure the trivial importance of .NET will be news to them.

Re:.NET Framework?

[pembo13]

I guess you haven't used the .NET Framework yet. Some of its output simply doesn't work in Firefox.

Re:.NET Framework?

[nberardi]

That is total BS, and you are going to have to back that up with some facts and links. I develop ASP.NET for a living and have never run into a problem with Fire Fox support. Sufari yes, Opera yes, Firefox no. Plus if you don't like the controls that Microsoft has developed you can always create your own. Nobody is forcing you to use the Microsoft controls. You can even take it down to the fact that if you don't want to use the Page object you can create your own handler from the IHttpHandler interface. Then you don't have to worry about any of the rendering from Microsoft controls.

You are totally wrong and you have been called out.

Re:.NET Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Not use Microsoft controls? Override Page handling? Those are the entire point of using ASP.NET - it would be like using MFC without using CString, and the hundreds of other classes they out in .NET for the sole purpose of attempting to make your life easier.

I won't give you links or references, if you're really a .NET developer and test with Firefox it wouldn't take you long to find things that doesn't work. What I will do is just assume you mean ASP.NET 2.0, where they did fix a lot of things. 1.0 and 1.1 were horrible and output especially non-standard Javascript (actually JScript/EXMA hybrid that worked on IE but nothing else at the time). 2.0 has fixed a lot of that, but for people who tried the "new technology" and abandoned it because of its non-standard output, what the GP said remains true.

Not even AJAX stuff, I mean just normal "get some values and post back" processing. Which of course is ludicrous because why not just have a normal form and post values? .NET uses ONCLICK instead, where the javascript sets up some return values for the server to deal with, and without javascript enabled the whole site can degrade disgracefully. Overengineering at its best, and when done by people who are only microsoft-aware (MS employees) while IE 6 has 90+% market share, the problems of .NET 1.0 and 1.1 are almost guaranteed.

Okay, you got me, I decided to try to find the biggest issue I remember, the document.all problem with validators.
http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/051204-1.aspx

Re:.NET Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a load of crap. It doesn't inhibit anything. Developers use whatever the developer wanted to use, bunding a framework with an OS does nothing to inhibit the use of external frameworks. If a developer wanted to use PHP of Java, they would use it.

The .NET framework monopoly argument is bogus.

Bored

[ilovegeorgebush]

I'm getting bored of reading about the EU's investigations into Microsoft. It's quite clearly not working.

Re:Bored

[nospam007]

I'm getting bored of reading about the EU's investigations into Microsoft. It's quite clearly not working.

__
The last fine they paid was $613 million, that pays for a lot of investigation.

Re:Bored

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is, they've released the specs for samba... And other protocols...

Re:Bored

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon the MS shareholders will be demanding that Steve make it work.

Re:Bored

[GrahamCox]

I'm getting bored of reading about the EU's investigations into Microsoft

To paraphrase Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to get bored of [sic] attempts to stop it.

Microsoft & PC Repair

[xannash]

I'm not big on Microsoft...In fact I can't stand the way they do business.

But if you happen to be in the field of Computer Repair or even MS Security (I know that's an oxymoron). Microsoft can make you loads of money. Since all MS Products are buggy and virus prone, people in the these industries should be praising Microsoft for giving them a way to support themselves and their families.

I can't help but think about all the other anti-trust BS that they've been through that has changed NOTHING.

Re:Shudder... You haven't been probed until...

[davidsyes]

Byung-Gu gets ahold of your rear with his phallic, silver, steam-delivering alien anal probe.

He says, "See this here?... It's headed for a special place..." LOL!

He says no one has been able to stand it for more than an hour (I suppose he meant ALIENS, not humans...), but at least he lubes the thing. When it arrives on screen, it's a stunner. If you live in SF, you can borrow it from SFPL. Or, you can buy it online... Funny as hell. Crosses every imaginable film/movie genre in about 2 hours. Can't make stuff like this in the US...

http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/horror/savethegreenplanet/savethegreenplanet.html

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004650-save_the_green_planet/

http://www.loveasianfilm.com/reviews/savethegreenplanet.html

Cognitive Dissonance

[amliebsch]

The past couple of years, everyone on the hate-Microsoft bandwagon can't shut up about how Apple is eating Microsoft's lunch, Vista is rejected by the public, Linux is eroding Windows on the low-end, Mac market share is increasing rapidly, blah blah blah. Yet at the same time, they push for these antitrust probes which are based on the premise that Microsoft has something like a monopoly on desktop operating systems that prevents users from making a choice.

Doesn't these memes directly contradict each other?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[kellyb9]

Don't try and sway our opinion with your facts and logic.... you do know where you are, right?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Jesus_666]

Unfortunately, "Apple is eating Microsoft's cake" still means: "Woo hoo! Apple now has a SIX PERCENT market share! World domination, here we come!"

Yeah, once Macs and/ox *nix boxen are seen as a real alternative to Windows Microsoft can't be accused of having an OS monopoly anymore. But that's still not the case so we can have phenomenal growth of the alternatives' market share (going from 5% to 6% global market share is 20% growth, after all) and near-total Microsoft domination at the same time.

I'd love to see the day when things like these no longer neccessary, but breaking an encrusted monopoly takes a long time and the process has only just begun. If Microsoft keeps up alienating people left and right, Apple keeps being perceived as the cool and stable alternative and Linux keeps soaking up the "smart kid with limited funds" demographic I think we might see real progress in the next five years, but I don't think that the downfall of Windows will preclude the end of this investigation.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[westlake]

everyone on the hate-Microsoft bandwagon can't shut up about how Apple is eating Microsoft's lunch, Vista is rejected by the public, Linux is eroding Windows on the low-end, Mac market share is increasing rapidly, blah blah blah.
Doesn't these memes directly contradict each other?

Of course they do.

Which can only mean that no one on the bandwagon really believes in one or the other or both.

When Standard Oil was broken up, do you think its customers fled in relief to the small independents? The Libertarians of the oil fields?

Not on your life.

The Standard played rough.

But in the consumer market, it delivered good value for the money.

The Populist who voted anti-trust at the polls each November aligned just as solidly with the Standard's operating companies when it came time to gas up his new Ford.

The anti-trust crusader began to look as antique as Bryan. Rockefeller retires into the life of the philanthropist. Big Oil remains Big Oil.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[zoney_ie]

The memes are irrelevant. Reality is what's relevant.

The EU doesn't act on the basis of slashdot memes.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[amorsen]

They are not necessarily the same people. Besides, Mac marketshare increasing rapidly can mean something like going from 3% to 6%. That's a big difference to Apple, but pretty much invisible to Microsoft.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Weedlekin]

A 3% drop in market share is far from being invisible to either a company or its shareholders. There's a hell of a lot of agonising when growth isn't as high as people expected -- lack of growth is considered to be pretty dire, and sustained negative growth can result in things such as Ballmer going out the window on a chair thrown by someone else.

I bet IBM can remember what this feels like.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 50's, 60's and 70's IBM was repeatedly beat up on by antitrust people. The result was IBM couldn't ship a computer with an operating system pre installed. It didn't really mean that the computer wouldn't have an IBM operating system (since no one had a viable alternative available), it ment you had to buy the OS seperately. This practice continued into the era of the PC. Early IBM PCs were sold naked. This gave Microsoft the opportunity to sell MS DOS instead of the IBM labeled version of MS DOS. IBM's competitiors were able to sell computers with OS's installed but not IBM. Eventually this was changed, but not until IBM had been critically wounded in the market they created.
Microsoft may face the same future. They may be forced to sell a naked OS while their competitors will be selling an OS with lots of goodies bundled.
Is this a good thing? Who knows. Personally I think it may be a good thing.

It's a Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been operating as one for over a decade. It's been declared one even in the monopoly-friendly US for 7 years. I hasn't changed, and is even worse globally like in the EU. Its monopoly comes from bundling across the IT product line, extending even beyond software. Until it's broken into individual OS, app, development, network, content and hardware corporations which don't make preferential deals with each other instead of with any other competitor to each other, it will operate as a market abusing monopoly. Why shouldn't it? And why should the EU put up with that, when Microsoft isn't even an EU corporation?

I just saved the EU a lot of money. Now, if they skip the probe and start barring monopolies like Microsoft at least from doing business with the EU governments, they might actually save the EU's people some money, and get some better products out of a more actually competitive environment.

Re:It's a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a monopoly.

No it's not because I can buy one of these, or this, or even this thing here.

Re:It's a Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Yes it is because you don't know the difference between monopoly market control as declared by the US Supreme Court to protect the US market, and the game with "Boardwalk" and "Reading RR". Anonymous twitty Coward.

Re:It's a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

hi, it's me, anonymous coward, again. i have realised how entirely pointless my above post is and wish to retract it from the comments section. i promise i will in future at least try to read and, in time, maybe even understand microsoft's abuse of the monopolised market, before voicing my opinion here again. i thank you in advance for your kind understanding, dear slashdot readers. yours cowardly, anonymous

Re:It's a Monopoly

[KDR_11k]

So even if those die MS would just have to create a puppet competitor that doesn't get anything done but is theoretically available? You don't need to eliminate every last competitor to be a monopoly, you just need the largest marketshare and the power to make people depend on you (when MS says "do this or we won't let you sell our products" most if not all retailers obey even though they could just become a Mac-only shop). MS's customers depend more on MS than MS depends on them.

Re:It's a Monopoly

[mattpalmer1086]

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to (ab)use a monopoly to distort other markets.

The word you are looking for is "Ethical"

[mlwmohawk]

Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation.

Within the bounds of ethics! Microsoft is at a minimum one of the least ethical companies.

On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.

Ummm, that's ethics as well.

Re:The word you are looking for is "Ethical"

[KublaiKhan]

What are these 'ethics' you speak of, and are they legally enforcable?

All facetiousness aside, the investors -can- sue the board of directors etc. for malfeasance if M$ does not take every effort to make the maximum possible profit--so that's not really so much 'ethics' as 'staying on the investors' good side'

The probe isn't meant to be an analysis of ethics--because, yes, frankly, M$ has all the ethics of a kitten-and-puppy sausage maker. It's meant to figure out if they can bring a case against 'em for contravening the anti-monopoly laws; the only ethics involved are those which the legislators considered when passing the anti-monopoly laws in the first place.

Really, the only corporations that are bound by ethical practices are those of whose members are part of some body that concerns itself with ethics--e.g. lawyers, doctors, and the like.

Re:The word you are looking for is "Ethical"

[mlwmohawk]

All facetiousness aside, the investors -can- sue the board of directors etc. for malfeasance if M$ does not take every effort to make the maximum possible profit--so that's not really so much 'ethics' as 'staying on the investors' good side'

Well, it seems that a lack of ethics has undone more than one company and harmed its investors. Maybe Microsoft's illegal and unethical maintenance of their monopoly will get them at some point, and their investors will push for more ethical behavior.

Re:The word you are looking for is "Ethical"

[uglyduckling]

All facetiousness aside, the investors -can- sue the board of directors etc. for malfeasance if M$ does not take every effort to make the maximum possible profit--so that's not really so much 'ethics' as 'staying on the investors' good side'

I think they would have to demonstrate that the directors were grossly negligent. It's arguable that choosing a strategy of ethical business practices and good relationships with governments and public sector organisations might decrease profit in the short-term (e.g. by supporting ODF properly in MS Office and therefore open that market up) but in the long-term Microsoft can compete on merits for 'vertical' type markets and perhaps make more money from long-term support contracts rather than having to force new application software down everyone's throats every 18 months.

I don't think the directors are bound to choose a short-term profit-maximising policy in every situation, and in fact that will tend to lead to an unstable business that causes shareholders to lose out in the long term. An interesting parallel is ATM/cash-machine charges in the UK. In 2000, most banks were charging for use of cash machines by other banks' customers. It got to the point where you had to look for a machine physically at a bank branch to be sure you wouldn't be charged. Now in 2007 I'm not aware of any banks that charge for withdrawals, except for some 'independent' machines placed in shops and motorway service stations, and they are clearly marked. Recently a couple of UK banks started adding charges for overdrafts that had previously been free, and within three months reverted to the previous situation. In both cases short-term profiteering led to seriously disgruntled customers and the banks realised they were better off keeping customers and losing some profit in the short term. I think the latest versions of Office and Windows have caused similar reactions in software customers, and I think Microsoft will probably need to rethink its strategies.

Ironic

[misleb]

This is ironic because one of my bigger gripes about Windows is that it does not bundle *enough* software. And the software/utilities they do include are generally subpar, IMO. I usually have to spend a few hours gathering all the little pieces of software that I need for Windows to be generally useful as a base. Need a PDF reader, PDF writer (print to PDF), better archive file handling, CD/DVD burning, updated drivers, telnet/ssh client that DOESN'T feel like it was coded in 1986 and never updated, etc. A lot of it has to do with XP being so damn old, of course, but even back when it was released the bundled utilities were mostly useless. OS X (and Linux to a greater degree for obvious reasons), on the other hand, comes almost completely ready for general use (minus major apps like Adobe Suite) out of the box. I hardly have to download anything to get OS X going. And then there's iLife, which I don't use.

I wonder if/when governments are going to start going after Apple. OS X is 10x "worse" than Windows when it comes to bundled software. I use "worse" lightly, of course, because I actually want bundled software.

-matthew

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

I wonder if/when governments are going to start going after Apple. OS X is 10x "worse" than Windows when it comes to bundled software. I use "worse" lightly, of course, because I actually want bundled software.

There's a certain class of posters on /. that I can only assume to be mental retards, because even the most basic of concepts seems to illude them.

Apple is not a monopoly, you moron. Monopolies are constrained in their behavior in ways that other companies are not. This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm sure it's not the first time it's been introduced to you, so I can only conclude that you have a cretin-grade IQ.

Re:Ironic

[calebt3]

The difference with Mac is that they don't sell you an operating system. They sell you a computer that happens to have an OS on it that Apple wrote. I don't think Apple cares what you run on it, if you can get it to work.

Re:Ironic

[notorious ninja]

But Apple does sell its OS. You can buy a computer that comes with their OS, but you can also just buy the OS seperately.

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

Apple is not a monopoly, you moron. Monopolies are constrained in their behavior in ways that other companies are not. This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm sure it's not the first time it's been introduced to you, so I can only conclude that you have a cretin-grade IQ.

Gee, don't hold back or anything. Doesn't the fact that Apple is a viable (and increasingly popular) option for home computers pretty much destroy the idea that Microsoft has a monopoly? At best you could say they have a monopoly on PC hardware, but the same goes for Apple on Apple hardware.

New Macs are bundled with Safari. Which makes it very difficult for other vendors to compete with a web browser product unless it is free like Firefox. So how is this ANY different than WIndows and IE? Two different platforms, two different browser "monopolies." Why should Microsoft not get to bundle IE with Windows but Apple can bundle Safari with OS X?

-matthew

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

The monopoly has nothing to do with the hardware per se, but with the fact that the hardware in question makes up approximately 90% of all desktops. Until Apple approaches that kind of penetration, no, it is not the same.

Get it through your fucking head. Apple is not a monopoly. It's market share is too fucking low. As such, it is not held to the same rules as Microsoft. End of fucking story.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I would think that some one as incredibly intelligent as you would use the right words to get their point across.
Really man, next time use dictionary.com, it's a very useful thing.

illude
-verb (used with object), -luded, -luding.
1. to deceive or trick.
2. Obsolete.
a. to mock or ridicule.
b. to evade.

elude
-verb (used with object), eluded, eluding.
1. to avoid or escape by speed, cleverness, trickery, etc.; evade: to elude capture.
2. to escape the understanding, perception, or appreciation of: The answer eludes me.

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

The difference with Mac is that they don't sell you an operating system. They sell you a computer that happens to have an OS on it that Apple wrote.

You mean I don't have to pay for Leopard? Awesome! I'll hop down to the Apple Store and get my free copy today.

Apple is selling a complete package, true, but that doesn't mean you're not paying for the development of the OS (and upgrades)

They sell you a computer that happens to have an OS on it that Apple wrote. I don't think Apple cares what you run on it, if you can get it to work.

Most PCs come with Windows preinstalled. I don't think microsoft cares if you install something else, as long as the "tax" was paid by your PC vendor... which is added to the cost of the computer. At least with PC hardware you have the option of not paying for Windows. When you buy a Mac, you have no choice. You have to subsidize the development of OS X even if you are just going to wipe the machine and install Linux on it. They just don't break out OS X as a specific line item.

Re:Ironic

[elrous0]

And MS is just selling you a OS that happens to have some apps in it that MS wrote.

and, if Apple doesn't "care what you run on it," why can you only buy one with their OS installed on it? Why won't they sell me one with Windows or no OS on it?

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

Get it through your fucking head. Apple is not a monopoly. It's market share is too fucking low. As such, it is not held to the same rules as Microsoft. End of fucking story.

It isn't that simple. A true monopoly only exists when there are no viable alternatives. Apple (and even Linux) is a viable alternative. Now, I know a lot of people FEEL stuck with Windows because a) they are too lazy to learn something else, b) don't want to buy a new comptuer to get OS X, or c) depend on certain applications that require WIndows, but that doesn't mean they are. Just because Windows happens to be the most popular solution at the moment doesn't necessarily give WIndows a monopoly.

But whatever, lets just say Microsoft has a monopoly. What does that have to do with bundling software? Would you really prefer that Windows came with no browser at all? Isn't Windows already useless enough out of the box?

The reason I'm making this argument is because I think that the current hysteria about Microsoft's supposed monopoly is actually bad for users. I don't want Microsoft or anyone else forced to not bundle something as basic as a web browser with the OS. If for nothing else, I need IE to download Firefox. I suppose I could remember the URL and FTP it with that shitty ftp client they include with Windows, but having a default browser helps. Who cares if they bundle IE or Windows Media Player with Windows? The only problem I have with bundled software in Windows is that I don't like the particular versions they ship. Fortunately, I am free to use a Mac 99% of the time and I don't have to buy/download a bunch of third party software just to have a usable base system.

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

The monopoly isn't just Windows or browsers. It's everything from the restrictive server technology down through the Windows API, Internet Explorer and MS-Office. It's the market share that makes the monopoly.

The alternatives exist, but because of the artificial problems that Microsoft has made (like Kerberos, Word Document's format, etc.) the monopoly is maintained.

Re:Ironic

[madcow_bg]

Yeah, me too. I also want to have more software bundled with windows. Like a good text editor. Better browser, better file handling tools, and so much more.

The problem is, you and me and everybody else will have to suffer on that account. The thing is, monopolies are bad and are the worst, when they come to bundling. Yes, the consumer will have to put up with this FOR HIS OWN GOOD! For their future good. Yeah, that is bad, yes, it sucks donkey b.lls even. But somebody with better understanding of economy has decided that a long ago AND we can check to see that he is right.

Re:Ironic

[naapo]

Just because Windows happens to be the most popular solution at the moment doesn't necessarily give Windows a monopoly. Yes it does in regards to the EU antitrust law. There is no clear percentage limit for the antitrust law to apply, but there have been court cases where a mere 40% market share has been considered dominant. Below that you are (likely) safe; above that not. Microsoft clearly has a market share that falls under the EU antitrust regulations and Apple doesn't. yet. :-)

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

The alternatives exist, but because of the artificial problems that Microsoft has made (like Kerberos, Word Document's format, etc.) the monopoly is maintained.

Fine, but what does this have to do with bundling software?

-matthew

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

Because IE, with all its intentional bugs, idiosyncracies and protocol-breaking "features" has long been one of the main instruments of it. The reason this whole thing seems strange to you is because Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior was sufficiently distant in the past that the noxious effects seem to have been forgotten.

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

Because IE, with all its intentional bugs, idiosyncracies and protocol-breaking "features" has long been one of the main instruments of it.

So there wouldn't be any problem with IE being bundled if IE was more standards compliant?

The reason this whole thing seems strange to you is because Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior was sufficiently distant in the past that the noxious effects seem to have been forgotten.

The reason it seems strange to me is that I am sufficiently distanced from Windows that I am not very affected by their practices. I would rather see Windows bundled with decent software (IE7 is much better than IE6) than have it cripple by forced unbundling (for the relatively rare occasion that I have to use it). Well, that is what my rational half wants, anyway. The other half of me just wants to see WIndows butchered into oblivion by whatever means. Fortunately Microsoft is doing a good enough job of that on their own.

-matthew

Re:Ironic

[GaryPatterson]

Whilst he (or she) could have been a little nicer in phrasing it, MightyMartian is essentially correct.

Microsoft have to play by different rules because they've been judged to have monopoly status in the OS market. Apple and Linux don't have to play by those rules because they're not judged monopolists.

A monopoly doesn't have to be the only player in town, although that would be one definition. They have to be able to move and control the market, and Microsoft clearly can do this. In fact they've not been able to appeal their monopoly status in the many attempts they've made.

Apple can't be considered a monopoly in the legal sense because they hold a few percent of the OS market. Since they don't have to play by the special rules, they're free to bundle heaps of value-add software with the OS and make their customers happy.

Linux is similarly not a monopoly, and we get the full OpenOffice suite plus heaps of other software when we install the OS.

Microsoft are stuck in a difficult situation - they must avoid falling afoul of the anti-trust laws, particularly product tying - but they must also make a product that competes with Apple and Linux. Anti-trust laws tie the hands of the biggest player to allow the smaller players to compete.

Is it fair? It's hard to say. What is certain is that these laws aren't new or made just for Microsoft.

Re:Ironic

[tshak]

I wonder if/when governments are going to start going after Apple. OS X is 10x "worse" than Windows when it comes to bundled software. I use "worse" lightly, of course, because I actually want bundled software.


Excellent point. Cue the "but Microsoft is a monopoly" responses. At the end of the day antitrust legislation is about being pro consumer. It's not a cut-and-dried set of "you can and can't do foo with your product if you're a monopoly. There is, however, public interest in ensuring that what's bundled isn't preventing competition or damaging the value to the consumer in some other form. Making Windows have a far worse out-of-the-box experience (e.g. removing key functionality such as web browsing) is not pro consumer.

Re:Ironic

[Max Littlemore]

      "Looks like your trying to conduct a logical
      debate with with a rabid mac fanboi troll.
      Would you like some help with that?"
    __  /
   /  \
   |  |
   @  @
   || ||
   || ||
   |\_/|
   \___/

Re:Ironic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I wonder if/when governments are going to start going after Apple. OS X is 10x "worse" than Windows when it comes to bundled software. I use "worse" lightly, of course, because I actually want bundled software.

Please ignore most of the other replies to your post. They don't know what they're talking about and while you're wrong, it is not for the reasons they put forward.

Bundling software is no more illegal than shooting a gun (to use an analogy I've already used here today). What is illegal is leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain share in a separate, existing market. Bundling is one way to do that. To continue my analogy, it is illegal to kill and injure other people without provocation. Shooting people is one way to injure or kill them.

MS competes in the OS market against, well pretty much no one but a few Linux distros. They have overwhelming share of this market. Their customers are OEMs (like Dell, HP, and Sony) and large enterprises (like AT&T or UCLA) who are installing an OS on whiteboxes. Apple, refuses to sell their OS in this market (for very good economic reasons I won't explain here). If you were CEO of Dell, what OS would you buy to pre-install for your customers that would not result in you being fired within a month? Yup, just Windows, thus they have a monopoly and can control those OEMs and gouge them.

Apple sells their OS in a box, but only licensed to run on Apple computers, so really they're selling OS X upgrades. Mostly, they sell complete systems which compete with Dell and HP and Sony. You can buy a complete system from Apple or from Sony, thus they don't have anything approaching a monopoly in that market. Now this is not to say Apple does not have to follow the same laws. Apple, like MS, is forbidden from leveraging a monopoly in one market into another market. Apple has about 70% market share of portable music players, which is just about where governments tend to start investigating. Apple is currently being investigated and if they are found to have monopoly influence in that market, they'll be forbidden from bundling iTunes software or tying the iTunes store (via DRM and the iTunes software). Contrary to the opinions of others, the rules don't change and aren't being applied only to MS. You just have to know the rules are against leveraging monopolies, not bundling.

Now how does this affect you personally and your desires? Well, antitrust law doesn't stop OEMs, like Dell from bundling, since they don't have a monopoly to abuse. So if you want more bundled software tell OEMs that and go with the OEM that bundles the software you want. (Assuming there are not secret agreements with MS forcing OEMs not to install some of the software you want, which is likely one of the things that will be investigated by the EU) and hence may lead to you getting more bundled software, and more importantly, better quality bundled software since instead of IE and WMP, some OEMs will be able to install Firefox and WinAmp or even Opera and Banshee.

The end result of antitrust action is to make sure you get more choices, better choices, and lower prices. Wouldn't you like to buy a copy of Windows that does not come with IE and WMP and is reduced in price to reflect the cost MS pays to develop those programs, while still getting free software that does the same task? Wouldn't it be nice if companies had a financial incentive to invest in these markets again and produce premium software? Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft actually devoted significant resources to making IE the best browser instead of letting it sit with no improvements for a decade? Wouldn't it be nice if when MS introduced anti-features designed to hurt their customers and profit MS, they lost market share as a result and thus were motivated to not do that anymore?

I hope this has cleared up some of your confusion.

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

I think if Microsoft were forced by law to be as standards compliant in all its protocol and format implementations as its competition, that would suffice.

BTW, IE7 is better than IE6, but it still sucks.

Re:Ironic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

At the end of the day antitrust legislation is about being pro consumer. It's not a cut-and-dried set of "you can and can't do foo with your product if you're a monopoly.

Actually it is very cut and dried. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to gain share in another existing market. That's really all you need to know.

There is, however, public interest in ensuring that what's bundled isn't preventing competition or damaging the value to the consumer in some other form.

Lets see, MS has single handedly held back Web technologies by about a decade by bundling IE and refusing to even completely implement 8 year old standards. According to leaked memos they did this to intentionally keep the Web crippled so that Web applications cannot be used to bypass their OS monopoly breaking their lock-in via software availability. I'd say that's pretty damaging, wouldn't you?

Making Windows have a far worse out-of-the-box experience (e.g. removing key functionality such as web browsing) is not pro consumer.

"Out-of-box" experience is not really very important. MS's customers fall mostly into two categories: OEMs (like Dell and Sony) and enterprises (like the state of Ohio or Ford). Neither of these uses the systems as they are, but instead installs it along with a variety of other software using special deployment tools. The end user whether a Dell computer buyer or a worker at Ford gets a system that has all the features they need as determined by the person deploying it. The point of this antitrust action is to make sure those real customers (Dell or Ford) not only have the option of installing Firefox instead of IE or WinAmp instead of WMP, but they have to make that choice on a level playing field where only the merits of the software influences their decision. In this way, two things happen. First, the customers pick the "best" software for their users instead of using whatever MS pre-installed. Second, both MS and other developers know these people will pick what they think is the best and will compete to make their software better than the others, motivating innovation.

In a healthy market a software vendor can't let their Web browser stagnate for four years without adding any new features, during the height of the internet explosion. This action is about making sure MS and everyone else is motivated by cold hard cash to make the best products possible. Currently MS relies not on the merits of their software but on their ability to abuse their monopoly. Why would they spend the money to make their product the best when users will mostly use it anyway due to their bundling? You need to remove MS's ability to rely upon that bundling to get them to compete and make good products. That is what this is about.

Re:Ironic

[misleb]

Please ignore most of the other replies to your post. They don't know what they're talking about and while you're wrong, it is not for the reasons they put forward.

How can I be "wrong" when I never even made a claim? I simply noted that I find it ironic that Microsoft is chided for bundling software when one of my main complaints is that they don't bundle *enough* (good) software. By comparison, Apple would seem (at least on the surface) to be more guilty of using their OS to gain market hold on many areas of software outside of the OS. Just look at iLife, iTunes, Safari, etc. But I also understand that they don't necessarily do this to choke out competition as Microsoft has shown to do. They are just trying to provide a complete "package." It is a fine line, I suppose.

-matthew

Re:Ironic

[Vegard]

It's not about removing functionality. It's about letting the integrators (that means Dell, HP etc) decide a little bit about the functionality. If they could decide to leave out IE and install Firefox for their users instead, then there'd be not much to gripe about.

If they could decide to leave out WMP and install vlc instead?

That would mean IE would have to compete on functionality, as would WMP, to compete with the alternatives.

For IE vs. Firefox, it's starting to become a real competition again, though. But IE still has an edge in being pre-installed, so only by IE being exceptionally bad, Firefox can actually compete. And let's face it, it has been exceptionally bad. I fear what would happen if IE should become "good enough" again.

- Vegard

Re:Ironic

[jhol13]

my bigger gripes about Windows is that it does not bundle *enough* software. Blame Microsoft. They make it unnecessarily hard for ISV's and computer manufacturers to include software they would like to. For example I wouldn't be very surprised if Skype would like to get their product pre-installed. Or Dell OpenOffice.org (or perhaps StarOffice), just to sell it better.

Re:Ironic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How can I be "wrong" when I never even made a claim?

You're "wrong" because your post was predicated upon the assumption that "bundling" was illegal.

By comparison, Apple would seem (at least on the surface) to be more guilty of using their OS to gain market hold on many areas of software outside of the OS.

See, you're still doing it. Sure Apple is using their OS to gain market share in other areas, but that doesn't undermine the free market and is not illegal, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on desktop OS's. The word "guilty" implies a crime. Apple is not committing a crime by bundling things with their OS. Your error is in making that assumption and in so doing misunderstanding both the letter and intent of antitrust law.

Listen, you seem to be having trouble understanding me. I'll be really clear. Abusing a monopoly is illegal, regardless of if you do it via bundling or some other mechanism. Bundling is not illegal, unless it is being used as a way to undermine the market. Your posts both make it clear you've not really understood this so far. Here's an analogy that might help. Going into a house and taking a $20 bill of the kitchen table is not illegal in and of itself. Stealing is illegal. So if person A goes into a house and takes a twenty they own, they haven't broken the law. If Person B goes into someone else's house and take a twenty they don't own, they've broken the law and committed theft. It is the exact same action, taken under different circumstances. When half the people on a forum then write about how sure person B took a twenty, but person A did the exact same thing and hasn't been arrested, it is incredibly frustrating. I realize that antitrust law is not as well understood as stealing laws, but it isn't rocket science either. MS and Apple both follow the same laws and the laws have been applied fairly so far. Please understand that the criminal action is undermining a market by bundling a monopolized product and a non-monopolized product, not bundling two products that are not monopolized.

Re:Ironic

[Kalriath]

The reason I'm making this argument is because I think that the current hysteria about Microsoft's supposed monopoly is actually bad for users. I don't want Microsoft or anyone else forced to not bundle something as basic as a web browser with the OS. If for nothing else, I need IE to download Firefox. I suppose I could remember the URL and FTP it with that shitty ftp client they include with Windows, but having a default browser helps. Who cares if they bundle IE or Windows Media Player with Windows? The only problem I have with bundled software in Windows is that I don't like the particular versions they ship. Fortunately, I am free to use a Mac 99% of the time and I don't have to buy/download a bunch of third party software just to have a usable base system. At least until CuteSoft files an anti-trust complaint that Microsoft is being anti-competitive by including the shitty FTP client they include with Windows. Then we'll have no FTP client to get a browser, and no browser to get an FTP client. Effectively, we end up with a "single player OS".

how does one undervalue a currency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite seacrhing for an explanation, I've never understood this. How is this done? What does it do? And why is it done?

Re:how does one undervalue a currency?

[madcow_bg]

Despite seacrhing for an explanation, I've never understood this. How is this done? What does it do? And why is it done?

Exchange rate fixation. Countries do it all the time. Our currency (BGN, Bulgarian lev) is fixed to the euro. Naturally you accomplish it by saying you exchange levs for Euro unrestricted for this fixed prices. China also does it, but it is not only the dollar, but a whole basket of currencies. See http://en.wikipedia.com/Renminbi for more details on the yuan. Moreover, china does it by outlawing all exchanges of yuan except by their central bank, so the chinese currency is not free tradeable.

Why do it? When you have a country which is very important in terms of export or import, you don't want to disturb the economy with price fluctuations (USA/China rings any bell)? The british pound is a very strong example. They don't want to join the eurozone (the countries, that use euro as primary currency) because the dollar/euro is fluctuating very much. If they adopted the euro, now they would have gotten very strong euro vs dollar, which is BAD for exports to USA (the primary export destination). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday is a story about their last attempt to fix the pound to the euro.

Re:how does one undervalue a currency?

[meringuoid]

The british pound is a very strong example. They don't want to join the eurozone (the countries, that use euro as primary currency) because the dollar/euro is fluctuating very much. If they adopted the euro, now they would have gotten very strong euro vs dollar, which is BAD for exports to USA (the primary export destination).

General theme was good. Specific example, bad.

British government policy is in fact that we should join the euro 'when the time is right'. This is officially when five economic tests are met; in practice it is whenever they think they can win a referendum on the subject, which given the current state of public opinion will be the day a ski resort opens in the City of Dis. This is indeed in large part due to what happened with ERM; however, ERM was not the euro, it was a bunch of free-floating currencies bound by treaty not to vary too much. The pound sank too far relative to the deutschmark in 1992, but the British euro would never vary in the slightest against the German euro were we to join the single currency. Other economic problems might well arise, but at least not that one :-)

As it stands, the pound has more or less been following the euro anyway. You're right that the USA is our largest customer for exports, but check the figures: the rest of the EU, taken together, enormously exceeds the USA in consumption of British exports. Right now instead of a very strong euro vs dollar, we have a strong pound vs dollar. We get the same inconvenience in trying to sell stuff to the Americans, without gaining the benefit of being able to sell stuff to the mainland. But hey, we get to keep Brenda on the coins, and maintain our traditional pounds and pence which are an ancient symbol of our sovereignty dating back to 1971, so by jingo it's worth it!

Re:how does one undervalue a currency?

[Weedlekin]

"But hey, we get to keep Brenda on the coins"

They'd still get to keep her on the coins if the UK switched to Euros. Belgian, Dutch and Spanish Euros (and multiples and fractions thereof) for example have their crowned heads on one side, so this particular argument against them (which I know you're not making) is very much a case of FUD spreading.

IMO the most important point against the Euro is the fact that its interest rate is controlled from a central bank that's trying to do the impossible, i.e. balance the needs of lots of countries s whose economies differ considerably. It is therefore very easy to end up with a situation like the current one, where interest rates get progressively hiked to control inflation in Northern Europe, thus causing both inflation and impending recession in Southern Europe, where wages are a lot lower but (thanks to the Euro) most things cost the same, so people don't have much of a margin between income and their expenditure for necessities such as a place to live and food, and cannot therefore easily absorb higher credit costs (especially mortgages), which obviously also result in extra costs for businesses, who pass these on to consumers in the form of higher prices. At some point, something's got to give: the ECB has to drop interest rates; wages have to go up considerably in Southern Europe (thereby further increasing inflationary pressure); or a recession occurs in some parts of Southern and Eastern Europe, further accentuating the already considerable differences between various European economies, and making the ECB's job even harder.

It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

None of your points relate to the monopoly status of Microsoft. If there were valid competition, i.e. vendors *had* to work with standards because those who did not would LOSE business.

Microsoft's monopoly control makes it bad. With greater than 90% of the personal computer market, it does not need to work with others in order to continue to do business. In fact, the normal feedback processes of capitalism are inverted with monopolies. To maintain their position they must push against a level playing field.

The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.

Comcast won't support you on a P.C. if you don't use Windows, so you are forced to have a version of Windows in order to get support.

coercion is a form of force.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Pojut]

The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.

Comcast won't support you on a P.C. if you don't use Windows, so you are forced to have a version of Windows in order to get support.

And last time I checked, Best Buy, Comcast, and those laptop manufacturers are seperate companies from Microsoft. They could just as easily sell all their computers without Windows.

Of course, the next step in that argument is that no one would buy them. Going along that line of thinking, who is at fault here; Microsoft, or the people and companies that continue to buy and use their products?

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[jorghis]

"Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing."

Here you go:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8398673&type=product&id=1179877238756

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

And last time I checked, Best Buy, Comcast, and those laptop manufacturers are seperate companies from Microsoft. They could just as easily sell all their computers without Windows.

100% absolutely correct. It is Microsoft MONOPOLY that makes real competition impossible. The barriers to use of another product make it almost impossible to not use Microsoft products.

Of course, the next step in that argument is that no one would buy them. Going along that line of thinking, who is at fault here; Microsoft, or the people and companies that continue to buy and use their products?

"Fault" does not matter. Yes, Microsoft has been found to be illegally maintaining their monopoly, but besides that point, they *are* a monopoly, they *are* harming competition, they *are* eliminating choice.

If you want to say it isn't Microsoft's fault, I disagree, but it is undeniable they are either the cause or benefactor of an anti-competitive environment. We must eliminate the anti-completive environment.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

Just so you know, that is not a P.C. laptop, it is a Macintosh, but you knew that.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[jorghis]

So what is your definition of a PC laptop then? A computer running windows? Of course 100% of the computers that ship with windows will ship with windows.

Apple runs its OS on the same kind of computer windows runs on. Its just a different operating system.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Pojut]

Well of course you won't find that. Would you expect Apple to sell their systems out of the box using their biggest competitor's operating system? Come on...

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[jorghis]

"Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing."

And here is a laptop from best buy that ships with linux:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8625295&type=product&id=1193452147742

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Pojut]

100% absolutely correct. It is Microsoft MONOPOLY that makes real competition impossible. The barriers to use of another product make it almost impossible to not use Microsoft products.

But once again, who made Microsoft a monopoly? We, the consumers. 90% of us use Windows. Unless Bill Gates went to the home of every Windows user that you know and held a gun to their head unless they used his products, people CHOSE to give Microsoft THEIR money...Microsoft didn't take it from them, it was given BY them.

I'm not defending Microsoft's buisness practices...but for the very people who made them a monopoly to be crying foul on them...that's just plain stupid. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Blakey Rat]

The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.

First of all, Best Buy sells Linux laptops.

Secondly, then why is Microsoft being sued and not Best Buy and Comcast? Is the EU now holding Microsoft responsible for the behavior of other retailers? That's ridiculous.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

So what is your definition of a PC laptop then?

The canonical name "P.C." brings with it BIOS compatibility, ability to boot of standard boot sectors.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

But once again, who made Microsoft a monopoly? We, the consumers. 90% of us use Windows. Unless Bill Gates went to the home of every Windows user that you know and held a gun to their head unless they used his products, people CHOSE to give Microsoft THEIR money...Microsoft didn't take it from them, it was given BY them

You really misunderstand what it means to be a monopoly. Consumers had little if any choice in what they wanted to buy. Blackberries only work with Microsoft Exchange. Why? Because Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to set a standard without any industry buy in. Now, they've defined the standard and if blackberry users what to use their email, they best have Windows exchange.

That is how monopolies work. You don't have a choice, you have to buy the monopoly to use something else.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Your.Master]

So? Best Buy provides a viable competing product. It's nonsense to disqualify it on the basis of bootup details that even most technical users don't really care about.

I'm not saying your entire point is moot, but the basic assertion that you cannot easily get a non-Windows computers (granted you said PCs, but I say that's an irrelevant distinction in this case) at major chain stores is incorrect.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[KDR_11k]

But did people go out and say "considering all of its qualities I decide to use Internet Explorer" or did they just see the icon on their desktop and use it because it's there?

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[mlwmohawk]

ranted you said PCs, but I say that's an irrelevant distinction in this case

No, that is PRECISELY the distinction.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, stupid?

I just checked my lotus notes email with my blackberry, not 2 minutes ago.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[jorghis]

Thats nonsense, a personal computer is a computer designed for individuals. Boot sectors have nothing to do with it. (for what its worth wikipedia agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer)

I suspect you have just been watching too many mac commercials and gotten the idea that there is a difference somehow related to pcs wearing ties and macs wearing trendy metrosexual clothing. :)

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[GaryPatterson]

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a company reaching monopoly status in a fair market. That's a very possible result of competition after all.

Once a company holds a monopoly it must avoid using it illegally, which is where all the anti-trust laws come in. They prohibit certain types of corporate behaviour, lock-in, product tying and force the monopoly company to play by different rules than other companies in order to maintain a free market.

Microsoft has been judged to hold a monopoly in several courts (US, EU) and so has to play by the special rules given to monopolies. Their 'traditional' offerings have to avoid being seen to tie products, but when they include a bunch of useful apps with the OS they fall foul of that. On one hand, the customer needs many of those apps anyway and this is a great convenience, on the other those apps could be viewed as illegal product tying.

It's a bit of a bugger for Microsoft, because the competing OSs include all sorts of useful stuff on the install media. Apple includes all the web, mail and home apps (iLife) a user could want and Linux includes a full Office suite plus heaps of other apps. The install media these lawmakers ask for would just allow Windows and nothing more. That's not a great selling point.

Maybe if there were a cheap, Windows-only install disc offered as a choice, while the normal Windows-plus-apps install discs were sold. That might do the trick.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit of a bugger for Microsoft, because the competing OSs include all sorts of useful stuff on the install media. Apple includes all the web, mail and home apps (iLife) a user could want and Linux includes a full Office suite plus heaps of other apps. The install media these lawmakers ask for would just allow Windows and nothing more. That's not a great selling point.

Maybe if there were a cheap, Windows-only install disc offered as a choice, while the normal Windows-plus-apps install discs were sold. That might do the trick.

This is not the remedy.

All that is required is for Microsoft to make any application they offer for Windows also available for any competing Operating System.

That is, Microsoft could legally bundle IE7 and WMP with Windows if they also made IE7 for Mac and IE7 for Linux available to the public for the same price.

Microsoft could have the OOXML format be accepted as an ISO standard if they made available Office 2007 for Linux and Office 2007 for Mac available with the same features for the same price. Alternatively, Becta in the UK would not be advising UK schools strongly against buying Microsoft Office 2007 if that product included decent, compliant and fully integrated support for the OpenDoucment (ODF) format, in accord with ISO 23600.

It is not the mere fact that Microsoft is a monopoly that gets Microsoft into antitrust trouble. What gets Microsoft into trouble is the fact that they try to use their Monopoly to force people to use only Microsoft products, and to try to force any competing products out of the market.

If Microsoft were to drop their lock-in policy and compete as any other player in the software market ... that is the remedy.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

But once again, who made Microsoft a monopoly?

Among other things: treaties forcing retailers to sell Windows and prohibiting the sale/pre-installation of competitors' products.
Or in the browser market: bundling IE for free with the OS, thus misusing their monopoly there; and back in those dial-up days lots of people didn't download alternatives to see what those had to offer.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[LynnwoodRooster]

There was a time - about 7 to 8 years ago - when people did go out and choose to download Internet Explorer rather than Netscape or other options. It won because it was free, not because it was pre-loaded on the computer.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[KDR_11k]

Back then, yes. But if IE never got OS integration would it really have kept that position?

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[amorsen]

And last time I checked, Best Buy, Comcast, and those laptop manufacturers are seperate companies from Microsoft. They could just as easily sell all their computers without Windows.

No, to get OEM pricing from Microsoft the laptop manufacturers generally have to agree to keep other operating systems to separate model numbers. That is, they can't offer the same model number with both Windows and Linux, they have to make two identical laptops except for the OS. This may seem like a small problem to you, but it's actually quite a hassle for the laptop companies and the shopping chains. Since it's such a hassle, the laptop manufacturers offer very few laptops that way.

Re:It's the monopoly stupid

[Weedlekin]

It was actually ten years ago for most people. The last consumer version of Windows that didn't come with a bundled version of IE was the initial Windows-95 release; OSR2 (an OEM version of Win95 launched in 1997) bundled IE 2, and although this wasn't tied into the internal APIs and subsystems like later OS releases, there was no option to remove it, so most people were stuck with it (that early version could be removed by people who knew what they were doing, but that was a very small percentage of computer buyers).

So anybody who bought a new computer with Windows on it from 1997 onwards got IE with it, and for most, the lack of an option to remove it meant that they were stuck with it on their systems whether they wanted it or not.

Re:The World - Mythical

[Anonymous Coward]

The Unites States rapes its own through [...] reducing taxes on the rich.

Really? If you work in the US, have you looked at you pay stub recently?

Did you know:
The top 5% of wage earners in the US pay over 53% of the income tax.
The top 10% pay nearly 65% of the income tax.
And the top 50% pay a whopping 96% of the income tax.

So you think taxes have been reduced on the rich?

So if Linux were the domnant OS...

[Anonymous Coward]

...would you consent to no apps being bundled with any retail distro, by edict? Or would you be a hypocrite in this case?

Re:So if Linux were the domnant OS...

[taniwha]

well 'leveraging a monopoly' involves actually making money by doing so - if your business involves giving stuff away I don't see how you're applying leverage - if you never make any money by doing it there's no issue - for example if you're M$ and decide that you're just going to give word away that's OK, but if you decide that you're going to use the leverage you have over hardware manufacturers to include the purchase of word in every hardware sale that uses windows - that's leveraging a monopoly - the same applies to linux except that in the linux case you're always giving the stuff away

I don't get it...

[Captain Original]

I don't understand this round of bruhaha... When Microsoft was/is using their market position to demand that manufacturers not bundle competing products, that's a monopolistic use of power. But that's not mentioned in the complaint at all...just a bunch of whining that "they aren't standards compliant." Yes, as a developer, it blows. But just because something blows doesn't mean it's abuse; it's just an asinine business practice. Furthermore, there are many other browsers available that work just fine with Windows, including Opera. In fact, FireFox is a great browser that is very successful on Windows.

To me, it seems that Opera is whining, and the EU is protecting a company that resides within its borders. If this was really a question of companies including software w/ their OSes, then Apple should be included as well. Hell, any Linux distro includes more software by default than Windows does. And I'm not even sure what the .NET framework or Office has to do with any of this. (Frankly, Office 2007 is so hard to use that the OSS crowd should be jumping for joy. I mean, if you have to basically learn a whole new software suite, why not learn the one that cost nothing to use?)

Re:I don't get it...

[Shados]

To your comparison to Apple and such, you'll get a bunch of "When you're a conficted illegal monopolist, the rules change" answers".

That being said, there are just some things that if Microsoft don't buddle, they simply don't have a product anymore. I mean come on, an OS without built in media player or browser? Lol. And the .NET Framework is the main door to interop on Windows, since it allows third parties to more easily build on Windows...

IE sucking balls is the only freagin reason Firefox or Opera have been able to pick up...if it was NOT bundled, but it actually rocked (I know, its hard to imagine), Firefox and Opera would never have been able to gain any Windows market share...

All this garbage is pushing it. Its definately a GOOD thing to keep Microsoft in check, but push it too far and you start hurting the customers. For what? To help other companies, which is just moving the problem around: customers still lose.

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't understand this round of bruhaha...

Okay, do you understand antitrust law well enough to know what is and is not illegal antitrust action?

But that's not mentioned in the complaint at all...just a bunch of whining that "they aren't standards compliant." Yes, as a developer, it blows. But just because something blows doesn't mean it's abuse; it's just an asinine business practice.

Actually, MS bundling a browser with Windows is antitrust abuse all by itself. Their intentional breaking of standards is further abuse because it results in competing products being artificially broken through the use of MS's monopoly on desktop OS's. It further speaks to potential remedies of the problem, since simply forcing MS to not bundle IE it this point would not fix the broken Web browser market.

Furthermore, there are many other browsers available that work just fine with Windows, including Opera. In fact, FireFox is a great browser that is very successful on Windows.

Do you have any doubt that if MS had not bundled IE with Windows in the first place other browsers would have larger market share?No? Me neither. It doesn't matter if users can download Opera or Firefox. Most won't either out of laziness or ignorance or because the Web itself has been broken to be noncompliant as a result of MS's action. Here's a question for you. Can the Firefox development team do something to force every Windows user to have Firefox on their system? No they can't. MS can and did. That is proof of MS using a monopoly in one market to promote a product in another. That is what antitrust law makes illegal.

To me, it seems that Opera is whining, and the EU is protecting a company that resides within its borders.

Bullshit. First, Opera is based our of Norway, which is not an EU member. Second, the EU has enforced this same law against numerous companies based in the EU. Third, the US convicted MS of bundling IE... they just didn't do anything about it because there was an election and MS contributed large amounts of money to both parties and our corrupt politicians replaced the prosecutors with people who basically let MS off with no punishment.

I'm really tired of hearing this same, old, flawed argument from people who don't bother looking into it, but assume the EU acts like the US.

If this was really a question of companies including software w/ their OSes, then Apple should be included as well.

Please educate yourself. It is a matter of companies bundling any product in one market with another product with one which they have monopoly influence. And Apple is being investigated for bundling the iTunes software and for tying the iTunes store to said software given that they may have enough influence in the portable music player market to qualify as monopoly influence. The law applies the same to everyone.

Hell, any Linux distro includes more software by default than Windows does.

Yeah and Linux or the software qualifies as having monopoly influence in what market?

. And I'm not even sure what the .NET framework or Office has to do with any of this.

It's easy, both are tied to Windows, which is a monopoly. For example, MS has long bundled a text editor that reads the proprietary Word format with Windows. They don't include one which reads competing formats, thus giving them a competitive advantage in the word processing market. That is potentially illegal.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have missed the fact that Opera does not reside within the EU's borders...

Re:I don't get it...

[howlingmadhowie]

opera is a norwegian company. norway is not a part of the eu

Re:I don't get it...

[Captain Original]

Actually, MS bundling a browser with Windows is antitrust abuse all by itself. Their intentional breaking of standards is further abuse because it results in competing products being artificially broken through the use of MS's monopoly on desktop OS's. It further speaks to potential remedies of the problem, since simply forcing MS to not bundle IE it this point would not fix the broken Web browser market. So far as I know, only a few browsers are completely standards compliant. Yes, Opera is one of them; however, with the announcement that IE 8 should be ACID 2 compliant, that argument starts to fail. Should IE be allowed to be bundled if it passes that test? If not, then why? Because a browser should be considered an after market add on? Please! Browsers are as integral to computing now as anything else is. For instance, calc.exe has been part of the OS since Windows 3.x at least. If Casio, claimed that the calc program made it more difficult to sell calculators, I would scoff at that too. Frankly, playing card companies have more of a beef than anyone - who plays solitaire with real cards any more?

Bullshit. First, Opera is based our of Norway, which is not an EU member. Second, the EU has enforced this same law against numerous companies based in the EU. Third, the US convicted MS of bundling IE... they just didn't do anything about it because there was an election and MS contributed large amounts of money to both parties and our corrupt politicians replaced the prosecutors with people who basically let MS off with no punishment. Yep, my bad. I assumed that Norway was a member country. And yes, Microsoft did get away w/ it's case here when it's back was to the wall. That being said, if you think the EU doesn't look out for it's own, you're crazy. Google the US-EU Banana Tariff Dispute (or get a summary here.

Please educate yourself. It is a matter of companies bundling any product in one market with another product with one which they have monopoly influence. And Apple is being investigated for bundling the iTunes software and for tying the iTunes store to said software given that they may have enough influence in the portable music player market to qualify as monopoly influence. The law applies the same to everyone. However, the majority of stories coming out of the EU regarding monopoly investigations pertains to MS. Yeah, I think that iTunes is also a monopoly - the fact that they force music companies to adopt their pricing scheme is more abusive than including a web browser in an OS.

It's easy, both are tied to Windows, which is a monopoly. For example, MS has long bundled a text editor that reads the proprietary Word format with Windows. They don't include one which reads competing formats, thus giving them a competitive advantage in the word processing market. That is potentially illegal. It's not illegal to have a monopoly - it's illegal to have a monopoly and use that power to influence pricing or technology. There was no word in the article regarding pricing at all. It seems more like this is a case of going after the evil, big, bad wolf just because nobody likes him.

Re:I don't get it...

[Captain Original]

So I've been told. However, they are part of the European Economic Area. That doesn't really change the fact that I was originally wrong, but it's an interesting tidbit to know.

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So far as I know, only a few browsers are completely standards compliant.

No, I doubt any browser is, but have you ever done any Web development? If you create pages based upon the standards and then test 99% of the time it will work just fine in every browser except IE, where it never works. MS doesn't even try and the leaked internal e-mails show that this is intentional.

...with the announcement that IE 8 should be ACID 2 compliant, that argument starts to fail. Should IE be allowed to be bundled if it passes that test?

You're completely misconstruing what the ACID-2 test is. It is not a general compliance test for Web standards. It is an edge case test, meant to be used to see if a compliant browser correctly handles some weird cases and handles broken content according to the standard for how broken things are to be handled. One can easily create a browser which passes the ACID-2 test but which fails on a large percentage of common, standards compliant pages. It was not designed to "prove" you follow standards but to help browser developers test some parts of the standard that were often broken even on largely compliant browsers.

Even if IE 8 were to conform to standards in every way, that is no guarantee that MS won't intentionally break them again in IE 9 and does nothing to redress the damage they've done in the intervening decade.

Should IE be allowed to be bundled if it passes that test? If not, then why?

No. Because the Acid-2 test is not comprehensive compliance test. Also because compliance is not the only factor in which browsers are different. Imagine for a moment IE 5 had been completely compliant, and bundled. It still doesn't have tabs and is inferior in many ways (no tabs, no spellcheck, no ad blocker) to other, competing browsers, but it still would dominate that market. When an inferior product wins market share over a superior one, just because it is bundled with something monopolized, that market is broken. It isn't fair to consumers or other browser developers.

Forcing MS to comply with standards and forcing them to unbundle IE would be about the minimum it would take to level the playing field again.

Because a browser should be considered an after market add on?

Because there was an existing, healthy market for that product before MS introduced their bundled product. That's the law. MS knew it before they broke the law, but they gambled that they'd make more money breaking the law and paying the fines than they would complying... and so far they've been right. Breaking the law pays, because US politicians are easily and legally bribed via lobbying.

Please! Browsers are as integral to computing now as anything else is.

Which is why it is important to make sure the market is a healthy, capitalist free market that rewards innovation. How exactly would removing IE from Windows be unfair? People can still download it if they want. OEMs like Dell can still pre-install it if they want. All it does is level the playing field so that IE has to compete based upon how good it is, not upon the fact that Microsoft also makes Windows and can abuse that fact. Really, if IE is a good product, it will retain its market share. If it sucks, it will lose market share... just like every other product. This not only rewards other companies, but gives MS incentive to make IE better. How can you have a problem with that?

However, the majority of stories coming out of the EU regarding monopoly investigations pertains to MS.

MS is the most prodigious antitrust abuser since Bell. The EU is also investigating Apple for their iPod tie ins and dozens of other companies we've never heard of because we don't pay attention to those markets. Any competent economist will tell you the only way to fix MS's absurd amount of abuse is to break them up, but the EU has treated them with k

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

To your comparison to Apple and such, you'll get a bunch of "When you're a conficted illegal monopolist, the rules change" answers".

Well sort of. Actually the rules don't change. The rules just don't apply in most cases. The "rules" say that it is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to gain share in another market. Since most companies aren't monopolies, they don't have to worry about this law.

I mean come on, an OS without built in media player or browser?

Something most people seem to be missing is the law applies to MS, not to OEMs like Dell or Gateway. They are free to bundle IE or Firefox or WinAmp or whatever they like, so this would not be a problem for most users.

IE sucking balls is the only freagin reason Firefox or Opera have been able to pick up...if it was NOT bundled, but it actually rocked (I know, its hard to imagine), Firefox and Opera would never have been able to gain any Windows market share...

This is true, but it doesn't spell out a very important point. By forcing MS to compete on even ground with other offerings, you force MS to make IE better instead of relying on bundling. This is important so I'll repeat it. This provides direct, monetary incentive for both Microsoft and other software makers to invest in making better browsers, which is a big win for users, regardless of which browser they end up using.

All this garbage is pushing it. Its definately a GOOD thing to keep Microsoft in check, but push it too far and you start hurting the customers. For what? To help other companies, which is just moving the problem around: customers still lose.

And this is why my previous point is so important. When the bundle is put together by the user or by an OEM, their incentive is to give the user the best software so that people will buy their bundle instead of a competitor's. Competition results in better products, otherwise; extreme socialism would have killed capitalism. Capitalism's major virtue is that it used greed and laziness and self-interest to motivate better products... which it does very well until a monopoly appears. That is why we have the law in the first place. When Bell telephone was broken up, what happened? All of a sudden prices dropped, new services became available, and people stopped renting a crappy rotary phone for a huge amount of money and started picking up cheap phones with answering machines and autodial and speaker modes. If MS is stopped from bundling, all those markets in which it has a bundled or tied solution (jukebox software, web browsers, programming frameworks, server software, video players) will innovate faster and have better, cheaper products. That is the whole point of enforcing these laws.

Re:I don't get it...

[Captain Original]

I'm not saying that MS was not guilty of antitrust violations. I am asking though what are the merits of the new accusation? Is it the same accusation, or is it different? Frankly, the market has change SIGNIFICANTLY, for better or worse, than it was in the mid 90's. Consumers expect browsers included in the OS. Yes, OEMs should be able to include other browsers with their systems. If Microsoft were demanding they don't, this should be a violation; however, that was never referenced in any of the articles (I believe that was the case in the past). I am doing my best to understand antitrust law as far as the EU is concerned. According to Article 82 of the Treaty Establishing the EC:

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. Now, one can say they are being abusive, however, it's hard to argue that with competitors doing well in the EU: adoption of FireFox ranges from 20 - 40% in some member countries, according to Ars Techica. If Opera were doing as well, I would imagine that they wouldn't complain. If IE were really so abusive these days, would they have such viable competition?

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm not saying that MS was not guilty of antitrust violations. I am asking though what are the merits of the new accusation? Is it the same accusation, or is it different?

One of the charges is the same thing MS was convicted of in the US, but has not been charged with in the EU. Previously the EU convicted them of abuse in the server OS market and audio player software markets. They are now looking into web browsers (which they've been convicted of in the US) and other, unnamed markets.

Frankly, the market has change SIGNIFICANTLY, for better or worse, than it was in the mid 90's. Consumers expect browsers included in the OS.

Back in the day, consumers expected to have to rent a standardized, rotary phone from the phone company, not to be able to buy any phone from the store. It has nothing to do with what is legal or best for the market.

Yes, OEMs should be able to include other browsers with their systems.

Sorry, not good enough. OEMs need to consider MS's software on an even playing field with other software, with no incentive to include o not include it other than the merits of the software. The market needs to be a level playing field for everyone, or the law is being broken. OEMs should include or not include IE because they think their customers will prefer it based on its merits, not based upon artificial problems introduced into competitors (broken standards in use). If IE is included, OEMs may simply leave it and not bother making the choice and consumers will suffer and developers will still target IE because they know it will be included, while they don't know if a different browser will be. They have to bundle all of them or none of them or the market will still be broken.

it's hard to argue that with competitors doing well in the EU: adoption of FireFox ranges from 20 - 40% in some member countries

Yes, and a lot worse in other EU countries. So you consider say 30% market share, versus 60% market share when the one with 30% is faster, has dozens of features the other lacks, is more secure, and properly reads pages while IE does not, and has been that way for many years. I'd say when it takes MS six years to implement something as simple and widely acclaimed as tabbed browsing windows, that competitors are not doing well to have only 30% of the market (and that 30% is pretty generous).

If Opera were doing as well, I would imagine that they wouldn't complain.

You completely mistake Opera's market. Opera makes most of their money selling an embedded browser of phones and the like. They sell fewer browsers because they can't handle all the pages broken to work with IE and can prove that in court. They do fairly well in that space, but are still losing largely to embedded IE based upon artificial problems, not real problems with their browser.

If IE were really so abusive these days, would they have such viable competition?

All of their competition has to give away their browser just to enter the market since everyone is forced to pay for IE's development when they buy Windows. As it is, most of the big competitors were started by frustrated users as a way to get another option since no business felt entering the market against an abusive monopoly was worthwhile.

Can you tell me one good reason why MS should be able to force every windows machine to ship with IE, but the Firefox team and Opera can't force every Windows machine to ship with their products? MS does it simply because they have a monopoly and no one stops them from leveraging it. As a result, we all suffer. IE 7 still doesn't implement 8 year old standards every other browser has complied with basically forever. Moreover, there is evidence this is an intentional attempt to keep the Web itself crippled so that people can't bypass their desktop OS monopoly using web based apps. You don't see the Web itself being crippled and held bac

Re:I don't get it...

[Shados]

Of course, let say instead of buying from OEM I buy Windows on a CD... I don't have a browser yet. How am I going to go and download one exactly? Windows update? I hardly find that a good solution. I fully understand your point, but its simply not viable. Programming frameworks and server software not being bundled? They don't sell too many Windows Server 2003 through OEMs... so then you're going to have to install a freagin barebone Windows Server, and go one by one installing all the tools to make a network? That reminds me of compressed files... having to go and download all the darn softwares if someone dare sending me a rar or ace file. If nothing else, I'm wishing they'd bundle MORE stuff without having to go through Dell or whatsnot. Want it or not, an operating system, almost by definition in 2008, is a framework of tools to exploit the hardware. If a default install for any OS doesn't include a media player, a browser, networking stacks, as many runtimes as possible, basic text editors, etc, its incomplete, seriously. I understand that the law doesn't care about that...in which case I feel the law has to be changed or interpreted differently in this case. If MS started bundling Office (themselves, I know Dell and such do) or Exchange, we'd be getting somewhere, yes. But they don't. The only thing i find important is that MS has to make darn sure that OEMs -can- bundle other stuff, and that the APIs are open, and I realise MS hasn't been perfect in this regard, far from it, and they need to improve there. If I type a web address in the explorer, Firefox will pop up if its my default browser. No one even has to know that IE is there. Java programs can run by simply being double clicked on, even though they're not exes. All of the "casual" PC users I've seen install iTunes on any computer they get their hands on (including office computers). FastCGI is up and kicking for IIS, if you don't like ASP.NET. As long as everything can be replaced and overriden... I don't see the problem. Stripping basic stuff away will just hurt the people who actually LIKE Windows (yes, there are some!).

Re:I don't get it...

[Shados]

Oups, forgot to switch to plain ol text... hope the wall of text isn't TOO bad.

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Of course, let say instead of buying from OEM I buy Windows on a CD... I don't have a browser yet. How am I going to go and download one exactly?

Assuming you are such a user, you probably already have a different computer, since 99% of people cannot install an OS by themselves. Here are your options, use a different computer to get it, get a free CD with a browser on it (which everyone will start giving away), go to Best Buy and get a free CD there, use the CD provided by your ISP, use an FTP program to grab one, use a package manager to grab one from a repository (want to bet MS would not add such a package manager?), or use some other method I haven't thought of yet.

I fully understand your point, but its simply not viable.

Yes it is. You may think this will be a problem for users, but I'm sorry practically no one installs their own OS these days. If you do, you are part of a tiny fraction of a percent of people and I'll bet you have a computer already that you can use to load a browser from the internet, don't you?

Programming frameworks and server software not being bundled?

Programming frameworks are used by developers, which is a smaller, more savvy group yet. Server software is too vague of a term and we'll have to wait and see what they mean by it. MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly to gain share in the server OS market, which is probably what they were referring to. There isn't much point addressing your comments with regard to that since it was not defined and since i was speculation about what types of software the EU would investigate for possible problems.

If a default install for any OS doesn't include a media player, a browser, networking stacks, as many runtimes as possible, basic text editors, etc, its incomplete, seriously.

Nope. A computer system is an OS, a bunch of applications, drivers for hardware, and the hardware itself. That is what most users buy. If you like building your own systems on whiteboxes, great, but it will take you one extra step of keeping a CD full of your applications, which most people who install whiteboxes do anyway. Alternately, you can just install a package manager, or MS could install one themselves and make things easy on you.

The only thing i find important is that MS has to make darn sure that OEMs -can- bundle other stuff, and that the APIs are open, and I realise MS hasn't been perfect in this regard, far from it, and they need to improve there.

That is not sufficient to establish free market competition. OEMs must not only be able to add software and remove software, they must be forced to specifically choose which software they want to add to their bundle and they must make that choice without being influenced by MS's monopoly, based upon the individual merits of the software packages. That is a requirement for a capitalist market to function and generate the levels of innovation that occur naturally in markets without the influence of a monopoly.

If I type a web address in the explorer, Firefox will pop up if its my default browser.

Good for you, but you don't represent the rest of the market. Most users don't know that is even an option, or why they would want that to happen. Most users assume all markets are free, capitalist markets and so don't investigate if there is a better browser. They assume if there is abetter browser, Dell would have installed it, just as they assume if there were a cheaper, faster engine, Ford would have put it in their car. The problem is, the Web browser market among many others, is not a free, capitalist market. It is a market that has been illegally influenced by a monopolist in another market. So consumers suffer and the market as a whole stagnates. No one invests significant capital in the market, because competing against a monopoly costs a lot of money, has higher risks than other investments, and returns less

Apple is next

[n1_111]

so is everybody else.

The stupidity of MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem. Microsoft forbidding their customers (OEMs) to bundle other web browsers (and other competing products) was. Your statements make it clear that you do not understand the problem.

This is what always struck me the most about how stupid it was of MS to engage in this behavior. MS IE has always been, by far, the best browser on Windows. When IE3.02 was released, people were LITERALLY fleeing to it away from Netscape... a browser they had actually paid money for!!

And from that time until now, IE has always been the most stable browser to use. Now sure, other browsers had some better features (tabs, and... um... tabs... oh, and that acid thing which nobody cares about, too), but just talking in terms of stability, IE has always been the best. Mozilla does a good job of masking when the browser crashes (it crashes and reopens all the windows you had prior to crashing)... but that's just a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Seeing where Netscape started, it's not that amazing how after all these years, and even after the panacea of going open source, the browser still isn't stable. Polishing a turd doesn't change it's basic nature, no matter how much time and energy you put into it.

But the logic the EU, and Opera, employ in making a subset of laws which only apply to Microsoft, it just seems really destructive. If I were Microsoft, I would actually challenge the fact that the "you can't bundle" law only applies to them. If they get a 'fair' judgement which says companies can't bundle anything with anything, it would devastate the EU to the stone age. You couldn't sell a TV with a remote control, or a toy with batteries, or a car with a stereo, or floor mats, or wiper blades, or even oil or gasoline. The EU would reduce itself to a collective of nations legally forced to selling everything in DIY kits... with parts made by different manufacturers.

Just based upon the sheer magnitude of insanity the EU's previous rulings have made, I think they would be forced to backpedal. Otherwise, making Apple unbundle Safari and all their other apps would only be the start of their landslide into anarchy.

Re:The stupidity of MS

[orkysoft]

There is no law that says you can't bundle products, it's Microsoft's punishment for abusing its monopoly position.

I agree, Netscape 4 was pretty unstable, but MSIE has had so many terrible security holes, I'd rather take a browser crash now and then over constant virus infections.

Re:The stupidity of MS

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the competing browser crashes are instigated by IE or some other random code in the OS because it is competing? Microsoft has done this before...

Microsoft didn't bundle IE, they integrated it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft didn't bundle IE, they integrated it. You can't uninstall Internet Explorer. Period.

If you use any other OS, you can delete the browser and use something else.

Re:The World - Mythical

[toopc]

That data you provided doesn't tell us too much. It certainly doesn't tell us if taxes have been reduced on the rich. All it shows is that people with more money will pay more dollars in taxes. What we're really interested in (at least as far as this goes) is if the tax rate on the rich has been lowered, and what percentage the top 5%, and top 10% pay in taxes. Esp. the actual percentage they pay after any type of tax shelter is taken into consideration.

You could tax someone like Steve Jobs at 10% and he'd still pay more taxes (in dollars) than I would, even though I'm paying over 30% of my income as taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

Finally!

[Tom]

After all these years, finally an investigation with enough width to actually cover the problem.

The browser, or the video player, all that were only just whatever the current incarnation of the real crime was. Looking into the bundling issue independent of a specific problem is what should've been done long ago.

And interoperability as well! Someone in the EU has looked at and really understood what it's all about.

That's one of the days where I'm proud to be a European.

mod parent up

[elrous0]

Thank you! You can't force people to pick your favorite alternative OS by bankrupting the company selling the market leader. People have two strong alternatives to Windows (Mac OS and Linux). People, by and large, still choose Windows. That's not a monopoly, it's a consumer choice. Deal with it.

Re:mod parent up

[Jesus_666]

Well, how many people choose Windows because it comes preinstalled with virtually all PCs? How many choose it because works only with Windows (which is because most people use Windows)? Windows' popularity is a self-reinforcing system that leaves the customer little choice.

Warning: Car analogy.
How many people use gasoline cars, compared to ethanol cars? Not many. The fact that ethanol stations are few and far in between and that ethanol cars are somewhat rare is an important factor. There are not many stations because it doesn't make sense to cater to a very small market. Likewise, designing an ethanol engine will make you less money than designing a gasoline engine.
The factors keep reinforcing each other: It doesn't make sense to use a fuel that isn't provided by most suppliers and it doesn't make sense to supply fuel that most people don't use. The benefits of each kind of fuel are irrelevant because gasoline's sheer market dominance ensures that it stays that way.

Of course, now this situation is slowly breaking up. Not because people suddenly want ethanol, but because of external forces - gasoline is becoming ever more expensive due to the oil price and tight eco-laws make ethanol more attractive. Without those laws and the rising oil price, however, gasoline would always stay more popular, simply because it's more popular.


Note that the mere fact that Windows dominates the market is no problem. It's not pretty, but it's not illegal. It's when Microsoft uses its OS dominance to take over other markets when it's time to brandish the antitrust club, because that hurts the market by reducing competition in formerly healthy areas.

Re:mod parent up

[unapersson]

Consumer choice? So I can go into a high street PC store and choose what OS I want on my PC? That's news to me.

Re:mod parent up

[DiarmuidBourke]

You can't force people to pick your favorite alternative OS by bankrupting the company selling the market leader.

Last check on how much Bill Gates is worth, is 59Billion US$. The last fine the EU imposed was only 500Million. I don't think Microsoft is going away anytime soon.

People have two strong alternatives to Windows (Mac OS and Linux)

Indeed they do. Both of which arn't offered/sold in stores or online as much as Windows is.

People, by and large, still choose Windows. That's not a monopoly, it's a consumer choice. Deal with it.

This is due to the factor above, if Windows, OSX, Linux and "Other OS Here" were all available as a *choice* for a consumer when purchasing a pc (or just purchasing a new OS), and companies produced their software for each OS, I'm sure we would not have Windows with a 95% market share. Therefore Microsoft is a monopoly, and there is minimal consumer choice. We are dealing with it, via anti-trust lawsuits.

Re:mod parent up

[sapphire wyvern]

Of COURSE you can choose.

Do you want Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate?

That's *FIVE* choices! :D

Re:mod parent up

[elrous0]

You can if you're buying from Dell or having it custom built. That's how I buy all my computers (actually, I custom build them myself). No one ever MADE me buy Windows, anymore than Apple MADE me buy their OS. I don't have to buy a Gateway, HP, or an Apple (and never would buy any of those). Like most people, I can put Linux on my system any time I choose.

Re:mod parent up

[elrous0]

I've seen monopolies. A monopoly is when I had a shitty cable company in my town who I *HAD* to use because they bought their way into an exclusive city franchise and passed local ordinances forbidding satellite dishes on houses. I've never seen MS with that kind of monopoly, even at the height of their power. There have always been alternatives to MS. Some of them were actually better (like Firefox, which blows away IE, and OS2 Warp, which was IMHO vastly superior to Win 3.1), and some weren't (Like Linux, which even with the Ubuntu distro is still a pain in the ass to use IMHO). Apple has used much more monopolistic practices by tying in their iPod players and iTunes together than I've ever seen out of MS (to my knowledge MS has never refused to sell their OS or license their wma DRM to anyone).

But MS is the easy target, and this is /.

Re:mod parent up

[Jesus_666]

Actually, I expect Apple to get one on the nose for iTunes, just not now. However, there's a big diference: While they try to abuse the iPod to push iTunes on everyone, they don't quite have the portable music player market in their pocket. While the iPod is very strong, you can get by just fine with any device that takes MP3 files. Sure, you don't get iTMS, but then again iTMS wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't easy to convert your AAC files into MP3s for use on your generic player.

Yeah, they try to use the same practices Microsoft used to kill off competitors like Netscape, only they don't have an actual monopoly to leverage, which is why the whole iPod+iTunes+iTMS stack is only inconvenient, not illegal. Once they start to utterly dominate anywhere, this might rapidly change.


As for MS being less evil than other monopolies: Yup, there are much more blatant cases. But then again, Microsoft did some pretty shameless stuff, as well (like forcing OEMs to load only Windows on PCs or lose their OEM status). Just because they aren't breaking all rules doesn't mean they don't hurt the market by leveraging their ubiquity.

Not to defend microsoft, but to explain the stupid

[Oriumpor]

that is microsoft design.

Taking your car analogy for a moment. Internet explorer is like the display engine for 80% of the in dash LCD systems, without it your car will run, but you won't be able to tell what your tac is doing, how much gas you have or how fast you're going.

Truly, without Internet explorer, you can't use windows explorer (without modifications anyways) the two are linked in the most godawful way humanly possible. The bar along the right, with all the crap options, the search feature with the puppy dog, all that crap is embedded IE.

Not to mention 90% of the crappy third party applications that render HTML were probably made in Visual Studio, which Microsoft has kindly included about a billion ways to embed IE with.

Here's a top five list of IE dependent 'critical' software on my work machine:
1. Outlook
2. Explorer shell (search)
3. IBM Update Utility
4. Windows Update (wuauctl)
5. IPCheck Client Utility

No doubt there are gobs more, I'm sure my corporate installed patching utility uses IE calls to download patches and lots of other crap like that...

There was a point where you could break the executable from opening, but even so unless you can find some way to get rid of the DLL, and associated calls for them every 10 seconds by some random app. even attempting to pull IE out of windows is a real pain (reboot in recovery console/bartpe delete DLLs etc.) all so you can have an OS that is totally crippled...

Re:Not to defend microsoft, but to explain the stu

[drinkypoo]

Explorer search can be configured back to the old behavior, which doesn't even use the animated search character, which can be turned off in any case. IBM Update util and IPCheck are not Microsoft's fault - they didn't force these people to embed IE. Blaming Microsoft for the laziness of others is pretty ridiculous. If you don't want to use windows GUI crap, don't use it! It's possible to install cygwin on top of NT :P

Basically you're complaining about the reliability, which is stupid, because we are talking about anticompetitive practice. Don't want to use IE for technical reasons? That's fine. But it's not remotely what we're talking about here. If I want to take some core component of Solaris out because I don't like it, I have to develop a workalike. Why should Windows NT be any different?

Re:The World - Mythical

[KDR_11k]

And what does their income distribution look like?

Whats worse than bundling...

[TheRealZeus]

...is that you can uninstall this apps if you want. i'm doomed to have IE and WMP on my computer if i run the m$ OS.

Re:Shudder... Yeh, but you probably

[davidsyes]

aren't a corporation that extracts or extorts billions out of other corporations and squeezes billions out of those people and corporations and governments trapped in ms code. So, you needn't empathise nor sympathise for the likes of msoft.

Dude...

[frank_adrian314159]

I wouldn't probe Steve Balmer or any of the other Microsoft guys even with the EU's d... never mind.

Not a troll...

[madcow_bg]

... just some poor uninformed guy. Here, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Negative_aspects to realize why a monopoly is a bad thing. No, wait, have you ever heard of OPEC? They are pretty close on that one, don't you know what they can do to your economy?

So what happened to Edition N?

[edxwelch]

Will this go the same way as Windows XP Home Edition N (ie.Windows sans WMP)?
According to wikipedia:
"Consumer interest has been low, with roughly 1,500 units shipped to OEMs, and no reported sales to consumers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Windows_XP_Edition_N

Shouldn't the EU be going at the real problem? Like the secret agreements that MS have in place to prevent OEMs from installing non-approved software.

Re:So what happened to Edition N?

[Kalriath]

No such agreements exist. You can pick up PCs with all kinds of neato software, like Firefox, or OpenOffice, or even LINUX!

Re:So what happened to Edition N?

[edxwelch]

I don't see any Dell or HP Windows machines with Firefox or openoffice, yet they have about a gigabyte of commercial software pre-installed. There must be some reason behind it. There is nothing preventing MS using their leverage to influence what software is installed - the previous US anti-trust case expired in 2006.

P.s. this is about browser choice on Windows, not Linux

Re:The World - Mythical

[BlackSnake112]

I work in the US and have looked at my pay stub. Try looking at the percentage of ones income to what that person pays in taxes. Remember that after $75,000 the amount of tax you pay goes down. So someone making $44,000 a year only get a few hundred less per check then someone making $74,000 a year. Once one clears the $75,000 mark the pay check start to go up fast. So yes the top income people pay less (percentage wise) then the lower income people. Middle through upper middle income people pay roughly 40% of their pay in taxes. The rich do not pay 40% of their total income in taxes. In pure dollars a rich person pays more then a non rich person. When you look at the percentage of what they pay in taxes to what they earned, the rich are paying less then the middle class.

It's about what they did to ISO

[cheros]

What MS did to the ISO process was so damaging that it has drawn the direct attention of the Commission. I had a feeling the Commission would examine it the moment they were made aware - the EU is very dependent on standards (any community is) and the damage MS has caused extends well beyond their little file format war.

The EU is lifting the covers off this one to see what type of standard MS was trying to ram through. Given the rather extensive amount of proprietary elements in MSOOXML I think they're in for another lashing - especially given the "collateral" damage (to use a popular military term).

It's one thing to draw scrutiny. It's another thing entirely to be back in the spotlight because it appears to suggest that the fine wasn't high enough. It's interesting that the EU seems to have a brain and teeth whereas the DoJ appears to only employ wet noodle slapping.

Diplomats? Don't hold your breath!

[golodh]

The US has precisely zero legal standing in the dispute, so "sending diplomats" would be an empty guesture.

Besides, I haven't seen any signs recently that the EU is at all impressed by the US opinion in this matter since it demonstrably operates well within the WTO framework.

Last but not least ... the US has enough troubles of its own to head for a trade war with its largest trade partner in the world. And just about the only major one with which, by the way, doesn't have a massive deficit.

So no. The EU might see some grumblings from the US, but it need't worry about any follow-up action. The EU is free to apply its fair-competition laws to Microsoft and there will be no-one in Washington willing to risk even a luncheon voucher to help Microsoft out.

So Microsoft just might just find that it's cheapest for them to play fair for a change.

Re:Diplomats? Don't hold your breath!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disappointed that we haven't yet had the standard idiot comment saying
"MS should just tell the EU to get stuffed and stop selling and supporting its products there."

Well, just in case, here's the answer:
MS cannot do this because the directors would be sued sucessfully by the shareholders unless it could show that obeying EU law might cost it more than it would lose by pulling out of the EU altogether (and this is clearly false).

Re: oh for the love of gord, not again

[mjwx]

I'm not re-typing my post, I'll just link to it.

Prepare to take your neuroinhibitors!

[AArmadillo]

In other news, the European Union is launching an investigation into the monopoly that smart people have on the job market. According to recent statistics, 90% of employees in the technology industry have IQs over 100, while less than 2% have IQs less than 80. According to the complaint filed by the representatives for the mentally challenged, smart people continually engage in anticompetitive behavior to keep the mentally challenged out of the job market. Of particular note is the amount of bundling that most smart people force on their employers; it is common for a smart person to be able to communicate effectively, write complete sentences, perform multiple job functions and assist others on the job. Additionally, smart people continually refuse to work with those less intelligent, monopolizing even the hiring process to do so, instead of remaining interoperable with them.

European commissioner Neelie Kroes has expressed deep anger at smart people's obvious monopolization of the job market and abuse of that monopoly to keep the mentally challenged from being hired. She has vowed to investigate and take whatever action is necessary to reduce smart people's stranglehold on competition, including both fines and the prescription of neuroinhibitors to put them on an equal footing with the mentally challenged. She then said that success would be when less than 50% of the world's employees had IQ's greater than 100.

Re:Prepare to take your neuroinhibitors!

[Rod Beauvex]

The sad thing is, there are people who seriously think this is a problem in the US.

/.'s Microsoft icon change

[Hucko]

The borg should be replaced with bulleye target.

The user defines what he wants in a PC

[westlake]

How many remembers what is definition of Operating System?

How many of the billion or so users on this planet give a damn about the formal definition of an OS?

The mass market votes for the PC with out-of-the-box utility. It expects to see a media player. It expects to see a browser.

Re:The user defines what he wants in a PC

[Fri13]

"How many of the billion or so users on this planet give a damn about the formal definition of an OS?"

Does it matter if 90% of humans thinks that world is flat and 10% knows it's sphere?
Is it then right to call flat world as fact definition because most users say so?

I tought that reason to have definition was that everyone knows what are people talking about. Just like we have words and grammar, so everyone can understand what others mean when they says "a car", "house is on fire" or "you are idiot!".

And because we are talking about technology, it is very clear that we cannot take a definition what is already given for something and change it because most users just dont understand what it means because they dont even care why it is gave in first place. Thats why we have schools so we understand what world really is what why something is working as it is working.

I can almost make a bet that most students thinks that they dont have any use of math when they graduate. But still they use all that learned things whole their lives, even they would not ever calculate anything with numbers. They have learned to estimate ranges and weights etc.

And then we should start changing math definitions because most humans dont care or even know anything about math?

If most of U.S citizens believes that God is on their side because every goverment declaration ends to "...and God bless we all" or "God is on our side" etc, it just dont make any reasons to kill other people because US citizens believe that a God has told them to do so or God agree that their terrorism against humanity is blessed. Because all countries has somekind religion, it dosn't make sense that their God is better than others. But hey! It's just religion stuff and not technology :-D

What about Macs?

[damncrackmonkey]

From OSX tech specs:

Applications: Address Book, Automator, Calculator, Chess, Dashboard, Dictionary, DVD Player, Exposé, Font Book, Front Row, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iSync (Supported Devices), iTunes, Mail, Photo Booth, Preview, QuickTime Player, Safari, Spaces, Stickies, System Preferences, TextEdit, Time Machine
Utilities: Activity Monitor, AirPort Utility, Audio MIDI Setup, Boot Camp Assistant, Bluetooth File Exchange, ColorSync Utility, Console, Digital Color Meter, Directory, Directory Utility, Disk Utility, Grab, Grapher, Keychain Access, Migration Assistant, Network Utility, ODBC Administrator, Podcast Capture, RAID Utility, Setup Assistant, System Profiler, Terminal, VoiceOver Utility, X11
Key Technologies: AppleScript, Aqua, Bonjour, CDSA security architecture, Cocoa, Carbon, and Java, ColorSync, Core Animation, Core Audio, Core Image, Core Video, H.264, Inkwell, OpenGL, PDF, Quartz Extreme, QuickTime 7, 64-bit computing, Sync, Unicode 4, Universal Access, UNIX, USB and FireWire peripheral support, Xgrid
Development: Xcode 3 IDE with Interface Builder 3, Instruments, Dashcode, AppleScript Studio, Automator 2, Shark, GCC compiler and toolset (original project by FSF.org), DTrace (original project by Sun), Complete Java JDK, including javac, javadoc, ANT, and Maven tools, Apache web server, AppleScript, Ruby and the Ruby on Rails frameworks, Python, Perl, PHP, SQLite

That seems like a completely reasonable feature set for an OS though, right? My favorite part is Boot Camp -- it's ok to run Windows if you run it on Apple hardware bundled with OSX, but there's no way they'll let you run OSX on anything but Apple hardware. If the EU wants to discourage anticompetitive tactics, it needs to be consistent.

RTFA

[babbling]

Microsoft are not getting busted for merely including these programs with Windows. That's only one half of it.

The other half is that the web browser bundled with Windows does not follow "fundamental and open" standards for how web browsers render pages. Essentially, Microsoft is getting busted for trying to subvert the commonly accepted web standards and replace them with proprietary IE-style web standards.

Same goes for the Office file interoperability, although that seems to not be mentioned in the ars technia article, but is mentioned in this one.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

So - if I create another open standard, then I can start suing companies which haven't implemented it the next day? How about if I publish a standard so vague that you can't implement it based just on the specification (ODF?)

Andrew Tridgell certainly can

[TopSpin]

Microsoft has had to license a mass of proprietary protocol documentation.

While I am sure nobody at Microsoft thinks so...

[DarkOx]

I really think it would have been better for Microsoft as a company if the DOJ had broken them up. As it is today everthing in the office automation, information processing, and home entertainment spaces that can be done with a computer(or network of small computing devices) pretty much as been or has been at least talked about. Those are Microsofts core spaces.

Microsoft can no longer do anything without the specture of Anti-trust law looming. I think its caused them a great deal of uncertainty in terms of product roadmap and generally taken away from their focus. The only products of theirs that seem to be improving are Exchange and Windows Server itself which are becoming functionally more like the Unix and VMS systems that inspired them in the first place. They are certainly not doin anything new; because their ain't much new to do, and skipping logical points of intergation to avoid stepping on toes that might go crying to the DOA.

Don't get me wrong I hate what Microsoft has done to the industry as much as the next Slashdoter. I also think two or three Microsofts would more then likely suck all the oxygen out room just as much as the one monolith does; but at least we might see some real progress.

Over the last six to eight years we have gotten just about exactly nothing from Microsoft of real value. Oh and don't say DotNet was inovative. It took Microsoft two years to figure out what DotNet was themselves and its not new either. Sandboxed byte code interpreters existed already; JAVA as well as others. Ok so Microsoft made some more compilers for other languagues targeting their byte code. Big deal its was an obvious move, anyone wanting to invest the man hours could have done the same thing with Java; and if nobody had well CPUs have gotten fast. Pure interpreters would have filled the space.

Could this come back to bite Apple and Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. Apple and the Linux distros all bundle software in with Linux. If anything, they bundle in more stuff than Microsoft does. I'm kinda concerned that this could be taken to an extreme that will hurt everyone, not just Windows.

Re:While I am sure nobody at Microsoft thinks so..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I really think it would have been better for Microsoft as a company if the DOJ had broken them up.

I doubt it, at least financially. Monopolies allow you to make money without creating anything of benefit to customers.

Microsoft can no longer do anything without the specture of Anti-trust law looming.

This just isn't true. MS has a lot of lawyers and the law is clear. They know when the way they introduce products is antitrust abuse and when it is not and they tend towards the former because they know it will make them more money. Nothing at all stops MS from creating new products, not tied to monopolized ones and competing fairly with them... it is just less profitable. MS isn't accidentally breaking antitrust law, they are a lot more informed than the average Slashdot reader. They do it willfully, betting the penalties will not be bigger than the profits, and they've been right every time so far.

I also think two or three Microsofts would more then[sic] likely suck all the oxygen out room just as much as the one monolith does; but at least we might see some real progress.

Two or three Microsofts would compete with each other and we'd get better products as a result.

Over the last six to eight years we have gotten just about exactly nothing from Microsoft of real value.

Why would they bother? It is easier and more profitable to leverage products into other markets, rather than create something good enough to compete fairly. DRM doesn't help MS's customers, but it does let them move into the media downloads market. Why work on user features when anti-features make more cash?

Split Microsoft

[Z00L00K]

into different companies with fully separated economy and no overlap in ownership.

• Operating system & networking drivers
• Network client applications. (browsers, email, chat etc.)
• Server softwares. (IIS, File server etc.)
• Databases. (Access, SQL Server etc.)
• Office applications. (Excel, Word, Powerpoint etc.)
• Software development.

And require that all these are geographically separated and that the documentation about all interfaces are publicly available for competitors.

Of course - this means that the chair-throwing guy will lose a lot of control.

Re:Split Microsoft

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't think your solution would work because it doesn't really address the core problem, MS's desktop OS monopoly and all the lock-in it has created. I think it would be more productive to break up MS, but to give at least two of the new companies complete rights to the copyrights, patents, and trademarks for their OS. Then we end up with two different Windows vendors competing against one another to make the best version. You can buy Windows A or Windows B based upon features and price and even take competing bids from them on large contracts. The OS monopoly is not just set back, but actually broken.

DirectX?

[Eternal Annoyance]

When is the EU going to do something about that thing? People around me have noticed alternatives to windows, but one of the most important reasons NOT to make the jump (to them) is games (of which 99.9% are windows only, because of DirectX).

Once Microsoft is forced to remove that from windows, and to actually charge for it (in a per seat license), Microsoft is going to feel the hurt a lot more as being forced to unbundle IE and MSN-messenger. This because most PC games are currently designed to only work with DirectX (and thus windows). This gives windows a major advantage in the OS market.

US Launches Another Antitrust Probe Into AIRBUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that a headline you wont see...because

-the case against microsoft based on some ridiculous standard/legal precedent is economic
  war aimed at the US and Microsoft is not the only american corp who is in the sights of the
  EU

  The EU, Russia, China to name a few are waging a steakth war against the US, call it Bush
  hate to the extreme

-because penguin fucking /.'ers love this sort of thing, they think it fills their sails

China is full of Old People

[Vr6dub]

China has a looming issue that I think a lot of people forget. Their population is aging, fast. With their one child per houshold initiative their average age is being pushed even higher. Taking care of half a billion retired citizens is going to become a serious strain on their economy. It will be interesting to see what type off effect this will have.

Re:China is full of Old People

[__aaqvdr516]

Along with the one child per household and the human rights violations that are occuring they've got a huge battle ahead of them. It's gonna be a long road...

scanned penis at grocery store

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile millions of fools continue to rub their penis to Halo on xbox, funding Microsoft while saying they hate them.

Would you like chairs with that?

Stop using cars as examples.

[jotaeleemeese]

That is an industry far more sane than software development and commercialization.

In many places you can buy the same model with or without air conditioning, with or without heating.

Fluffy USians, no wonder their carbon footprint is so disgraceful.

Re:Stop using cars as examples.

[drinkypoo]

That is an industry far more sane than software development and commercialization.

Why maintain the insanity in software-land, then?

In many places you can buy the same model with or without air conditioning, with or without heating. Fluffy USians, no wonder their carbon footprint is so disgraceful.

At freeway speeds, any even vaguely aerodynamic car gets better mileage with the A/C on than with the windows down. It's called drag. Air conditioning sucks up 5 HP at worst. In most of the US, it gets too hot in the car for human health without some form of ventilation at least part of the year. In some of the US, that happens all year.

You can still get econoboxes with no A/C sometimes, but it's pretty rare. However, basically no car is without heat. In the case of water-cooled engines, where the water is cooled by a water-to-air heat exchanger, adding another one to serve as a heater adds minimal weight and provides additional engine cooling, both when the heater is desired and in emergencies. Any non-ICE vehicle is probably expensive enough to where it has loads of amenities.

Actually, the big automotive problem in the US is that we have so many supergigantic cars that small cars are simply unsafe on our roads. A few companies have managed to come up with crash-certifiable, very small cars around here; I understand the Smart ForTwo has been crash tested, and I hope that Loremo car has been as well. The technology to build cars with space frames capable of protecting the occupants in an uneven collision has been around for a while but it's only now getting affordable. And no matter what, in a collision between a 1,000 lb loremo and an 8,000 pound dump truck, the little car is going to lose. We have far too many jackasses running around our roads in land yachts to drive the truly efficient vehicles here.

Anal Probe

[Anonymous Coward]

"US Launches Another Antitrust Probe Into AIRBUS (Score:-1, Troll)"

      Gashdot moderation is bullshit.

This is not a troll,its the alternate view to your skewed views on politics and macro economics.

    The moderators here are obviously clueless and cant tell trolling from information that coutners their and much of the /. community collective delusion

Alternatives ....

[jotaeleemeese]

People had to build them themselves.

The market was so destroyed by the monopoly that the only solution left was to roll your sleeves and start coding.

Find a car analogy, I am sure you will see how bad that would be in such hypothetical situation.

Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

a) It isn't about disk space but about virus protection. If you can remove FF from Linux or Windows, you are no longer open to any attacks that use that application or its libraries as a vector. IE remains a vulnerability even if you "remove" it because as you say in your second point...

b) IE is used as the ONLY system html renderer. If all it needed was an html renderer, why not make an api that can be replaced? (note: IE is spit around a lot of DLLs so that it can't be found or replaced by a hacked DLL.

Shows what you know, eh.

No, that's the in the US

[andersh]

It's actually illegal to be a monopoly in the EU. That's what's fundamentally different between the US and EU. If a corporation like Microsoft just by existing harms consumers (and companies) it's illegal and punishable. In the US you would have to prove that they did something harmful other than being a monopoly.

Re:No, that's the in the US

[mattpalmer1086]

I don't think that's true. Microsoft has a clear monopoly in PC operating systems in the EU - but Microsoft is not illegal in the EU.

If a company has a dominant position in an EU market, under article 82, it has "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". This is not so different to US anti-trust law, although it is apparently defined and enforced a bit more vigorously than in the US.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

If I've misunderstood the law here, I'd be grateful for any references you can provide.