Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla To Join EU Suit Against Microsoft
CWmike writes "The European Commission (EC) has granted Mozilla the right to join its antitrust case against Microsoft, a spokesman said Monday. If the charges stick, Microsoft could be forced to change the way it distributes IE, as well as pay a fine for monopoly abuse. Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's chairperson, said in a blog over the weekend that there isn't 'the single smallest iota of doubt' that Microsoft's tying of IE to Windows 'harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.'"
Opera, join!
ultimately reduces consumer choice
No, it doesn't reduce consumer choice. Many consumers are just to lazy to look or even care. IE does what they want, and IE is on the desktop and doesn't require downloading and installation. Those words alone terrify some users even though they should be more terrified of actually using IE.
that there isn't 'the single smallest iota of doubt' that Microsoft... 'harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.'
I agree. They never should've made IE for OSX.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Someone held the bastards feet to the fire..
I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
Great, now my grandma is going to call me up to ask why the Internets isn't working. Then I will have to go to Walmart just to buy my free webbrowser.
I see IE's bundling with Windows as a *boon* for browser competition.
I mean, without IE pre-installed on the box, how is Joe User going to go and download Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome?
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Didn't some Firefox exec just say bundling doesn't lead to market share if a competitor is good enough?
just the other day they (Mozilla) said that bundling does not boost adoption.... now this. was that a decoy or the man was indeed a bozo?
So yesterday we have this story(http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/09/1537203) about Firefox Execs not wanting to be bundled and today they want to join the lawsuit!!!
I think Mitchell Baker, Mozilla CEO, and Mike Conner, Firefox architect, need to talk about yesterday's Slashdot article, Firefox Exec Says Windows Bundling Is a Bad Idea and figure out exactly what Mozilla wants.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I love FireFox. It's all I use unless I'm confronted with some horrible IE-only site... but, are we really going to try and force Microsoft to stop including IE with the OS? If you have no web browser how are you supposed to go about getting one? Memorize an FTP address? Conveniently have one on a thumb drive or CD ready to go? Mozilla has already said they don't want to be included.
The answer to this is obviously less important to techies such as ourselves. I can, however, imagine the sad conversation I'd end up having with one of my less savvy peers.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
That must really damage the competition for those clients...
The whole thing is nothing but an old fashioned shakedown of MS by the EU. The mafia would be proud. Sad to see Mozilla even getting involved in this.
I use Firefox exclusively, and including IE by default not only didn't stop me from downloading and using Firefox, it actually helped. How else was I supposed to access Mozilla's website on my new PC?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Are they talking about getting rid of the blue E and bundling other browsers or are they actually talking about stripping IE out of the OS completely?
I ask because, while I never use IE now that all the sites I frequent work in good alternative browsers, I do use HTML Applications based on IE regularly. Many of the software installation CDs I have use a simple HTA as the frontend for when the disc is dropped in and I frequently build simple HTAs to "streamline" windows for family and friends.
I don't care if "Internet Explorer" as the window that opens when you click a URL is replaced with something else and while I think bundling an arbitrary group of 3rd party browsers is bizarre, I don't really care if they do that. But, if they actually strip IE from the whole system and remove the HTML Application functionality, it would cut out a portion of the OS that's (at least somewhat) useful that isn't really connected to the issue at hand.
Is that what they are going for?
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Wha... tying the browser to the OS kills competition, but at the same time it doesn't lead to bigger market share?
*head explodes*
It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for Mozilla to join the suit against MS while at the same time saying they don't want any of the viable fixes to be applied. This is basically asking for a handout that is only going to see the lawyers win in the end. MS makes money because they make a product that for all its problems is easily usable (apparently) by 90% of the world. For all that we complain here, telling a software company what they need to include in their program in order to sell it does not sound too good to me--I can see telling a company, "don't include viruses" but telling a company it can't include something that is foundational to the system's operation (for most people) is not just 'antitrust' enforcement, it's crippling a legitimate (however much disliked) business.
Haven't they said just recently
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
Yesterday there was a post about windows 7 basic being limited to two applications.
If this anti-trust suit goes thru, won't another one be waiting when someone points out that windows update, and other MS Products don't count as part of the limitation?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You do realize that Microsoft's bundling of IE made it so they didn't have to improve it to the point of being competitive? (Same goes for the per-processor agreements for DOS/Windows/MSOffice.)
I despise IE, I loathe it with the fury of a thousand suns. But what happens when my mom (the last remaining luddite) is finally compelled to upgrade her aging PC. She opens the box fumbles through the wires, even gets windows running through trial and error, then spends two hours shouting and weeping looking for her browser. I am the one who has to talk her through, or remote assist her before she destroys the machine with the keyboard.
FTA: She said there isn't "the single smallest iota of doubt" that Microsoft's tying of IE to Windows "harms competition between Web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."
I have one.
How exactly does one download firefox without a browser pre-installed? Is MS to install Firefox on their systems and then support it when people call their call center. Should they put Opera on as well...how bout Safari...wait I forgot chrome. Who gets to say which ones it can and cannot install.
What competition exists in the browser space anyways? Is there competition between drinking fountains. All these tools are free.
How does the Mac preinstall it's browser. Should we sue them to.
If the goverment is so concerend about this why not just spend the money advertising on TV that there are alternatives versus spending even
more in judicial system.
I guess no good deed goes unpunished. MS put out a superior browser to Netscape and made it free and now they are getting sued. So they bundled it so it is used by the OS. I think you can delete the big blue E from your desktop. So what if the binaries are still there and used by Outlook. I don't want the goverment making technical decisions.
If you don't like the way MS designs their software...install Linux or buy a Mac. If your software vendor doesn't support it find another software vendor. I remember pretty clearly when IE 4 came along and the idea of customizing folder views with HTML. I thought it was a cool idea. MS probably messed it up, but I don't see the problem having to use IE to see system folders and then using Firefox to browse the web. It has no effect on my use of firefox or my decision to use it or not use depending on what I'm doing. If KDE using some QT library is that killing competion in some other graphical library.
IE and Firefox both popup a warning saying "make me the default browser". For the technical changing it really isn't that hard. For the non technical even understanding the concept of a default browser is. I'm okay with having IEs first page being...look you have alternative to this, but then we should make all browser do the same thing and who decides what alternative should be on this page.
Honestly I think the government should spend more time sponsering open source then trying to kill MS. The money alone from this anti-trust could have developed real alternative to some of the windows only products still out there.
This sounds like a really good way for Apple to gain market share. It is a visually appealing, simple system that is easy to learn and when customers find that the government has broken their new computers, they'll take them back and get something that works.
I'm sorry, mod me as a troll if you like, but this whole thing reeks of Government putting its nose where it doesn't belong.
The EU tried them a while ago for anti-competitive practices, fined them, and forced them to release a bunch of code. Microsoft complied. The EU came back again and said it wasn't enough, fined them again, and forced them to release more. Yet again, Microsoft complied. Finally, the EU fined them a THIRD time and forced them to release even more code. Microsoft, again, complied.
Then you've got the entire EU saying "We recommend you don't use Windows. Our government isn't going to use Windows, either." which is all well and good, they certainly have that liberty.
Now you've got them suing based on the fact that MS packages a damn browser with their operating system (the one thing 99.99% of people buy computers for) and its anti-trust, too.
Geez, can you leave them alone already? If people want firefox, they can download firefox or opera or anything. If they don't want Windows, there's plenty of free alternatives.
Fine, you think their products suck. Don't use them. Tell other people not to use them. But don't hold a gun to their heads and tell them they can't sell a certain product.
Obligatory car analogy: It's like getting angry at BMW for using BMW driveshafts in their vehicles instead of offering vehicles with all 3rd party driveshafts.
Both. Microsoft had a monopoly long before Google came around, and was convicted of using it in an anti-competitive manner. Look at the market share numbers for the personal computer market lately?
It takes away from Gimp downloads.
i see all of this antitrust, anti-monopoly stuff going on in the EU, and i wish we had that pressure here, especially when it comes out our ISPs and our telcos.
i have 2 choices for an ISP (i like neither), and many places around here only have 1 choice. i wish someone would help us with that issue.
I use Windows and I use Firefox. So IE is included with the OS, who cares? It's never affected my choice of browser, but it has made it easier to get my favorite browser. Do you know what affects my choice of running a particular piece of software? Bundling. I remove every piece of software that wasn't created by the OS manufacturer in the first place. I guess that Microsoft must have cornered the Word Processor market by bundling Word Pad. Should Fedora be forced to include proprietary drivers? Seriously the EU needs to quit their friggen whining.
I think the issue is that functionality and quality don't go as far as they should in winning browser share. Mozilla fundraises to develop a good browser and market that browser. And that marketing made a big difference, especially right at its launch. This whole thing with the EU and the politics just seems to be going too far to me though.
I lost a lot of respect for Opera when they started whining about it and I feel the same loss of respect for Mozilla if they really jump in this too. Their fundraising has been justified (for the most part) in my opinion as a way of growing support for the standards, but that was a case of them building a good browser with functionality and quality and using it as the selling point. This is using politics to sabotage.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Does Opera and Mozilla want a settlement from Microsoft? Do they want their browsers pre-installed with IE or IE completely removed?
An OS without a browser.. the people who didn't know about choices in their browser are going to be the same people who can't figure out how to put a browser on the computer to begin with.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I'm genuinely surprised how many simpletons are confused because Mozilla claimed they don't want to be bundled and then the other people wondering how to get online without IE being tied into Windows.
The situation is not black and white. It's not a case of tying IE to Windows or bundling Mozilla. They're right that in both instances. Mozilla shouldn't be forced on people as well. Nor should IE be tied to the OS. The solution should be that the consumer gets to choose.
This can be achieved by making IE uninstallable for those that don't want it on their system and by not having it tied to the system the OEM can give consumers a choice in a browser.
It's not enough to just say "oh well OEMs can just install Firefox now". That is true but it doesn't factor in the fact IE is setup to try to take over as your default browser and it's not even a case that you can to never open IE because even if you don't want to open IE but use something like MSN messenger then it ignores your browser choice and uses IE anyway which will, by default, ask you to change your default browser settings.
If your parents are too dumb to sort out getting a browser themselves then how are they going to handle the constant nagging from applications to use IE . If half their applications make them use IE anyway then where is their incentive to use something else and put up with the constant changing of the interface depending on how the browser was launched?
If IE is untied from Windows there is no way OEMs will ship a system without a browser. So I dunno why people worry about that. It'll be better because they'll be able to give people a choice.
And again Mozilla wanting to see an end to MS' deceptive tactics does not automatically mean they want to bundled. The amount of options as to what people can do will be much larger if no browser is forced on people and they know this. For once a company is being good and why not? They know they have a superior product and don't need to force it on people.
But they do know there are a lot of people that can't use computers that well and when their PC keeps saying "hey don't you wanna use IE instead?" then they probably will because people hate to be nagged and in the end their choice is limited.
I would have thought this would be obvious to people on a geeky website.
Apple bundles Safari, Ubuntu bundles Firefox... the whole pissing contest is unneeded and a waste of time. The ONLY thing Microsoft should have to do is give an option to install/uninstall at will.
I wrote a calculator application, does this mean that I can go after Microsoft too? Or how about my custom Explorer.exe? Hell no.
The way I got Firefox on the three PCs that I use for personal and professional reasons was through an HTTP download from Mozilla's website accessed through Internet Explorer. It was easy and efficient to get Firefox this way.
To me, the sole reason that IE has existed on my PCs, was to serve as the program that allowed me to download Firefox. Once Firefox was installed I disabled IE from being able to visit any website (zero addresses are on the allowed list) so even if a program automatically boots up IE for some reason the site will be blocked as all other sites are.
I would be shocked if most people didn't obtain Firefox this way, downloading the install executable from a link using IE.
This suit makes zero sense. If you're buying a PC with a Windows OS in it, your default internet browsing option is going to be IE. The suit would make sense if MS forbid PC owners from installing Firefox but you have a choice of what browser you want as you can download Firefox. If for some reason you refuse to open IE that one time, you can get a friend to give you the install on USB or CD.
Microsoft dictating how you can and cannot use your computer is just as bad as the government dictating to corporations how they can and cannot fight their competition. If Libertarians want to be seen as credible, they are going to need to start holding powerful corporations to account for their behavior as zealously they do powerful governments.
How would you download Firefox on a new computer without Internet Explorer? The first thing I do with a fresh install of Windows is start Internet Explorer and download a real browser.
The question is can you uninstall Safari from OSX? If not then Apple should, as well, be forced to rectify that.
Microsoft doesn't owe these browser builders jack shit. Let them build their own operating systems.
undermines product innovation
Um ... no. It actually encourages it. Firefox, Opera, and Chrome have been the ones innovating in order to compete with M$. Examples: Firefox's superior add-on support, Opera's Speed Dial, Chrome's In Private browsing.
ultimately reduces consumer choice
Exactly how does that happen? All the choices still exist, its just that the general population doesn't make the choice. M$ cannot be blamed for that.
If Microsoft is dinged for this, it will be setting a double-standard for the industry. Does this mean that Safari cannot be bundled with OSX? or Firefox with Ubuntu? Absurd.
came with a radio installed. I'm going to sue Ford for their monopoly on car stereos.
Xaotik Designs
Total removal of IE can't happen. Well, it can.
Ehh, what?!?
"It can't happen. Actually it can happen"? There's no need to press submit after you've realised the initial sentence was wrong.
If people want to use IE as you claim then they can install it.
If some app they use depends on IE then they can install it, same as they would need to install firefox to run chatzilla.
The possibility that some people might want to install IE doesn't require you to force it on everyone though. Not least because it's a security vulnerability, even if you don't intentionally use it (e.g. see the apps which run "iexplore whatever" instead of "urlopen whatever")
Windows has IE.
Macs have Safari.
KDE has Konqueror.
How can any operating system not include a default browser?
In the past, Microsoft tried to use its operating system monopoly to create a browser monopoly to destroy open standards on the web. It almost succeeded. This type of behaviour should be discouraged and remedies need to be found for it.
However, it seems silly to require that Windows either not ship with a browser or ship with several. It would be a slippery slope where Macs would need to include Firefox as well as Safari.
I'm not sure what the solution is. I would prefer that all OEM ships machines with Linux/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD, as well as just Windows. This would result in far less market share for Windows and IE, and open standards becoming more prevalent.
However, I would not want to take away Microsoft's ability to include a default browser, because the next logical step would be to take away Apple's ability to include Safari and KDE's ability to include Konqueror as their default browsers.
This space left intentionally blank.
What part of "Apple and Canonical are not abusive monopolists" is too difficult for you to understand?
The European Union cannot split Microsoft into an applications and an OS company, which is the real solution to stop the bundling. But it can refuse to use Microsoft's bundled applications. I say ban IE. Web sites would be more standards compliant because every single other browser is exactly that. No more writing sites for two browsers, no more subversion of web standards by Microsoft. Ban IE. Make it illegal within the European Union. OEM's can preload whatever browser they want on the machines they sell, so long as they don't load IE. Ban IE, with stiff fines for installing it. Ban it, ban it, ban it, ban it. Ban IE.
I honestly don't know why people care so much about ie being bundled with Windows. It's Microsofts OS, let them build it the way they want, it's not like there aren't alternatives out there. I mean there's a million flavors of linux, there's Mac and so on and so forth. This really should be a non issue.
rehab is for quitters
Microsoft should walk into court and just say IE is our browser. We make it and it's good for our company. If you don't like it being the browser that comes with Windows then Mozilla better start coughing up money for us to bundle a competitive browser with Windows. I use Google chrome. But for me to get it I had to log on to IE go to Google and download it, that is what the average user has to do in order to install it. Take out IE and the computer is worthless.
consumers do NOT have to be hardworking, or care to have better choices inside a product they BOUGHT in order to conduct their daily lives or business.
they buy it to make their lives EASIER. not HARDER. they are NOT buying an operating system in order to have to WORK HARD and not be lazy to 'have options'.
Read radical news here
microsoft lost this case. Ec doesnt like this kind of thing. they will shave off ie, or force other browsers, OR, force ms to shove the ability to choose multiple browsers in people's eyes.
my best bet, they may require a central, nonprofit organization to list available browsers for windows, and an easy way to remotely fetch them from there on selection and install.
do your preparations accordingly everyone.
Read radical news here
Stop posting it. Why do >%25 percent of the posts in these articles have to be asking this question? It's already been asked a million times. There are threads dedicated to it if you scroll up. Read the fucking comments.
Why doesn't anyone sue Apple already? They have ilife and safari and I'm sure other programs preinstalled....
Also, they are suing someone from installing their OS onto clone computers? Talk about a monopoly and reducing consumer choice...where is the outrage with Apple...no everyone focuses on MS and Apple gets a pass...
Your post is idiotic. How about we allow OS developers to deliver the products their customers want, and not the product their competitors and geeky linux dweebs think they should?
The idea of distributing an OS without some kind of "always there" web browser is asinine. The ridiculous logical contortions you people jump through to justify it are just laughable.
By all means, if Microsoft prevents OEMs from including other browsers then you Johnny T Trustbusters might have a legitimate gripe. The simple fact is that the OEMs are entirely able to include other browsers, and if people buy a shrinkwrap Windows version they can install any browser they want.
When you don't get a copy of ie or firefox or any other browser with your computer, how are you supposed to get on line to down load a browser to... get on line? Oh I know, Telnet? IRC? OH... Gopher... right...
flinging poop since 1969
Does this apply to Apple bundling Safari with Mac and iPhone, too?
I mean I'm all for kicking MS while they're down as much as the next guy, but if the legal ruling is that bundling in-house browsers is bad practice, shouldn't that effect both big players?
Oh lord, let's hope there are similar law suites against Safari in MacOS, Iceweasel in Debian, Firefox in RedHat, etc. etc. etc.
Just where is the dividing line between package choice in putting together a desktop environment for a user and a monopoly?
This whole thing is bollocks to me.
If the EU can decide what apps can be installed by default with Windows, why can't the EU decide which apps can be included in a Microsoft repository or downloaded from third-party resources like CNET?
Think of how inconvenient and embarrassing it would be for the politician if users overwhelmingly chose an integrated Windows solution based on Microsoft apps.
Is this really the precedent the geek wants to set?
It seems to me rather naive to assume that regulation of Microsoft has everything to do with economics and nothing to do with domestic politics - or that the political winds will always blow in the geek's favor.
The REAL issue is that "default browser" setting is ignored:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22default+browser%22+setting+ignored&btnG=Search&meta=
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
This isn't a browser monopoly. Hell, give me a linux distro and i'll show you a linux distro with a bundled browser. Give me Mac OS X and i'll show you Safari. Give me Windows and I'll show you IE. Give me the Google OS and i'll show you chrome. Moreover, it annoys the hell out of me when people complain that you can't uninstall IE but don't want to know why you can't uninstall IE. IE is tied into Windows several ways, not the least of which is apparent in .HTA programs and the HTML based applications that make use of the IE rendering engine.
If you don't want IE that much then remove the shortcuts from the desktop and uninstall the update in Vista. Note that this won't uninstall IE, just the browser form of IE because IE is used by more than just the browser form of IE.
Yes -- I've always found it interesting that no one complains that Safari is required on Macs these days. Bundling is in the eye of the beholder, I guess ;-) From Apple's web site:
Choosing a default Web browser other than Safari
1. Open Safari (/Applications).
2. From the Safari menu, choose Preferences.
3. Click the General button.
4. Choose a different browser from the Default Web Browser pop-up menu.
Safari and Mail shouldn't be deleted
After changing your default application, you should not delete Safari or Mail, even if you do not plan to use them. You will need them if you wish to change your default settings in the future.
Is this sig nificant?
You don't know you could use them.
Once you HAVE used tabs, you don't know how you worked without them.
Sure MS used and continues to use their monopoly edge over other browsers, but you take away the little blue "e" icon now and just watch Joe consumer's backlash. I switched my sister to FF and you should of seen the fit I got because the "Send Page by Email" feature that takes a web page and sticks it in Outlook ready to email was gone.
I cannot believe that this case is not already closed. Internet Explorer is one of many monopolistic paths Microsoft has pursued. For those that seem to think that other OS's are the same, such as OS X, Debian and Red Hat, think again. IE is integrated into the Windows Kernel (foolishly I might add). This means that displaying web content anywhere in Windows means that IE components will be always be used by default. Even when changing the default browser, many Windows functions will only work in IE, such as Active X, Windows Updates, etc... Also, Windows Explorer and IE are very closely linked and you can see this if you type a URL into the address bar of Windows Explorer - surprise, page loaded in IE, even if Firefox is your default browser... Other OS's do not do this and will obey the default browser you specify, even if they only provide 1 browser out-of the box.
Just as I don't support the RIAA trying to litigate its way to market share, I'm not going to support Mozilla/Opera trying to sue IE into oblivion rather then out innovating it. IE is a crappy program and with half a business plan and some patience they should prevail without firing the lawyer cannons.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
This is kind of silly. What about Windows calculator utility? "No one downloads competing calculator applications because Microsoft comes with one built-in!" Give me a break.
Really, all Microsoft needs to do is open their update platform. Look at Ubuntu (or any Debian flavor)... in Ubuntu, if I want Firefox, I just open a console and type apt-get install firefox. Or I can use synaptic. Or aptitude. Or adept.
Windows Update only allows updating of existing Microsoft software on the machine. If this were opened up to support updating AND INSTALLING of Microsoft AND 3RD PARTY applications, then they could give users a choice of what they want to install without hunting it down on the internet and it would all be over. IE could be removed from the base platform entirely, and can be retrieved through Windows Update at any time... just like Firefox, Opera, Chrome, whatever.
But I digress.
I cannot believe that this case is not already closed. Internet Explorer is one of many monopolistic paths Microsoft has pursued. Also, Windows Explorer and IE are very closely linked and you can see this if you type a URL into the address bar of Windows Explorer - surprise, page loaded in IE, even if Firefox is your default browser...
Really? I just typed www.google.com into windows explorer and, OMG SURPRISE, it loaded in Firefox, my default browser.
The way I see it - MS are, to some extent, justified in arguing IE is a component of the OS. What's to stop developers developing a package, calling it a stand-alone product, declaring MS are in violation of anti-trust because thier OS ships with the MS version but no one elses and slowly but surely chipping away until the only thing left is the DVD it came on? This is applicable to linux, not just MS. At some point we have to draw the line or we'll end up with too much choice and too little OS. What about cars - might we see dunlop suggesting mercedes ships it's cars without wheels so that drivers can choose the sort of rubber tyre they want?
Microsoft has a compliant version of its flagship operating system without Windows Media Player available under the negotiated name "Windows XP N."[9] In response to the server information requirement, Microsoft released the source code, but not the specifications, to Windows Server 2003 service pack 1 to members of its Work Group Server Protocol Program (WSPP) on the day of the original deadline.[10] Microsoft also appealed the case, and the EU had a week-long hearing over the appeal which ended in April 2006.[11]
In December 2005 the EU announced that it believed Microsoft did not comply fully with the ruling, stating that the company did not disclose appropriate information about its server programs. The EU said that it would begin to fine Microsoft â2 million (US$3.20 million or £1.53 million) a day until it did so.[12] Microsoft stated in June 2006 that it had begun to provide the EU with the requested information, but according to the BBC the EU stated that it was too late.[13]
On 12 July 2006, the EU fined Microsoft for an additional â280.5 million (US$448.58 million), â1.5 million (US$2.39 million) per day from 16 December 2005 to 20 June 2006. The EU threatened to increase the fine to â3 million ($4.80 million) per day on 31 July 2006 if Microsoft did not comply by then.[14]
On 17 September 2007, Microsoft lost their appeal against the European Commission's case. The â497 million fine was upheld, as were the requirements regarding server interoperability information and bundling of Media Player. In addition, Microsoft has to pay 80 percent of the legal costs of the Commission, while the Commission has to pay 20 percent of the legal costs by Microsoft. However, the appeal court rejected the Commission ruling that an independent monitoring trustee should have unlimited access to internal company organization in the future.[15][16] On 22 October 2007, Microsoft announced that it would comply and not appeal the decision any more,[17] and Microsoft did not appeal within the required two months as of 17 November 2007.[18]
Microsoft announced that it will demand 0.4 percent of the revenue (rather than 5.95 percent) in patent-licensing royalties, only from commercial vendors of interoperable software and promised not to seek patent royalties from individual open source developers. The interoperability information alone is available for a one-time fee of â10,000 (US$15,992).[19]
On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional â899 million (US$1.44 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust decision. This represents the largest penalty ever imposed in 50 years of EU competition policy. This latest decision follows a prior â280.5 million fine for non-compliance, covering the period from June 21, 2006 until October 21, 2007.[20] On 9 May 2008 Microsoft lodged an appeal in the European Court of First Instance seeking to overturn the â899 million fine, officially stating that it intended to use the action as a "constructive effort to seek clarity from the court".[21]
Decide for yourself if you think what they were doing was justified or just a rampage of misplaced power.
Don't think so, if you are using WinXP Pro - SP3 and launching directly from Windows Explorer. I reset my default browser to IE, then back to Firefox to verify. You can replicate this as follows: a. Use "Run" and enter a URL and it will load in your default browser, eg: Firefox. b. Open "My Computer", find the "Address" bar, or expose it if it is hidden, then enter a URL and it will load in IE.
Really. That's the exact OS i'm on and it worked for me. In fact, I even delved into C:\users\ just to make sure it wasn't just on my computer and it still loaded in firefox and not IE.
I'll back my statement with Microsoft's history of monopoly abuses as nicely detailed in the antitrust trial and findings. I'll also back that with the whole history of the home computer market from the days when we had choices up to today.
Only a complete idiot would say that Microsoft won the PC wars fairly or that they are offering us the best possible product today.
Wouldn't KDE launch the site in Konqueror?
From the article:
Honestly I can't agree with this. Microsoft has the right to ship whatever browser they want in their OS, if the EU or the UN or whatever told Canonical to ship IE with Ubuntu I'll be really pissed off.
Yes the IE monoculture is harmful (surprisingly, due more to it being IE than being a monoculture) but the real problem is the Windows monoculture, instead of fighting to install firefox in Windows the goal should be to force OEMs to offer more OS choices.
Of course we can't blame OEMs for not offering Linux because desktop Linux is a very young platform (the first Ubuntu LTS is not even 3 years old).
If anything we should sue MS for the OOXML fiasco.
But... the future refused to change.
If that is so, then you or something else has changed the default behavior. I've always seen IE launch in vanilla XP installations from Windows Explorer. In fact, you can almost consider Windows Explorer a dumbed down version of IE for local computer browsing.
It's not just that MS abused it's monopoly by bundling IE and then further integrating it into Windows. It is that they then made up their own standards so that they could force people to use IE.
I can't count the number of people that when talking about other browsers say something to the effect of, "Well yeah but some sites don't work in Firefox/Opera/whatever." Which then in effect forces IE's use on people.
IE needs to be made standard complaint and fully removable. And in that order imo.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
If Microsoft has to unbundle their browser, then EVERY operating system should be required to unbundle browsers and applications as well.
If going after Microsoft is the kind of free trade that Europe envisions, that I think we should cut them off from exports to the USA as well.
Screw them. If they want to have their own os, browser stack, let them have it. Screw free trade. This lawsuit brought by the EU proves that yet again this policy is a total failure.
This is my sig.
And they can't stop it from being a vector of infection.
Did you not read anything in the tech journals???
Mind you, it's weird how many people have forgotten EVERYTHING.
"How do I get a browser if one isn't installed"
"What about car radios????"
"Huh, why not allow it to be bundled. EU just hates america!!!"
but these come up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
And answered. But for all the good it does, you'd be as well of throwing a pinch of salt in the ocean.
MS is certainly paying a SHITLOAD of cash today...
Are we really going to try and force Microsoft to stop including a monitor with the OS? If you have no monitor how are you supposed to go about getting one? Build one from scratch? Conveniently have an old one ready to go?
The answer to this is obviously less important to techies such as ourselves. I can, however, imagine the sad conversation I'd end up having with one of my less savvy peers.
Don't think so, if you are using WinXP Pro - SP3 and launching directly from Windows Explorer. I reset my default browser to IE, then back to Firefox to verify.
You shouldn't use the "Set as default browser" in Firefox settings to set it as default - it doesn't quite do the right thing, from what you describe. Instead, go to Control Panel and find something along the lines of "Default Programs" (on my Vista, it's actually right in the Start menu under "Control Panel"). This is a system-wide setting that should be respected by Explorer.
I must admit I didn't verify that on XP as I don't have any left around; but it does the right thing (i.e. open my default browser, which is Opera) on Vista and Win7.
That sounds like a good argument for allowing users to choose between Firefox, Safari, etc., rather than bundling Safari with OS X.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Consumers should be free. There should be NO web browser, and you have to figure out how to go use ftp to download your browser of choice. Ultimate freedom of choice - essentially freedom from choice for most users. Isn't that the logical conclusion?
The best part? The EU likely wouldn't be doing this if Microsoft was a European company.
This is so stupid!!! So what?? do you want an OS with no browser installed??? so you have to actually go and buy it from a store?? LOL think about it.. come on seriously.. is it really that hard for people to browse and get firefox or chrome... FFS EU should be focusing on more pressing problems in the world than a browser war...
Why does this always get modded +insightful?
There are plenty of software installers out there that download stuff without using a browser. If windows shipped without IE, it would include such an installer that could download any one of the major browsers.
OS can co-exist without browser, can it? Or you brain-washed completely? As an example, have a look at KDE where Konquirer acts as explorer, but it's optional as well as any other software.
Mods on cracks. Yikes.
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
It's nice to see Mozilla following the same successful strategy as Sun and AOL.
Bundling IE is still the number one thing holding back Web technologies and retarding innovation.
No its not. Not at all. It is that it costs a lot of money to write browsers. Opera doesn't have it. Opera can't compete with FireFox and Microsoft and Chrome just flat out kills them. Big fish want to give away browsers and are way better funded than Opera will ever be.
And, frankly, OPERA SUCKS.
This is my sig.
This makes me nauseous. Firefox is free for crying out loud. To claim damages you have to prove you lost something. You can't lose money on something you give away.
I've been using firefox for years now. But no more. That's not to say I'm going back to IE. At least I hope not.
Now I've got to find a new browser with all the goodies I have in firefox. I wont be a part of this. The taste of sour grapes is turning my stomach.
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Because IE is bundled, most consumers are unaware that they have a choice, and even if they knew, they wouldn't know how to execute that choice. The choice is removed from them.
It also reduces choice when buying a PC. How many PC vendors off a choice of browser?
Just because something is available by some means or other, it does not mean that consumers are given the full range of choices which they might otherwise have been given.
Well I gotta agree with a couple of points here .. i mean .. it's true that if IE is not bundled, how would we get any of the other browsers but then again its also true that a lot of users don't care which browser to use .. its not a matter of not knowing about other browsers .. for example .. i install firefox on every computer i work on (i'm a tech) .. but i'd say about 50% of my customers always go and use IE even though, they have both firefox and IE installed .. and it's not a matter of ignorance either because I explain to them their choices and the advantages and drawbacks of both browsers .. still i guess you could say some people are conditioned to MS .. so i donno how much this criminal complaint will do .. after all .. most linux distros (Out of Box versions) .. come bundled with Konquerer .. or Firefox .. so if you really wanna go there .. that's a form of bundling as well .. then again .. MS is the only OS that requires it's own browser for system updates .. so in a way .. it is a form of monopoly .. Personally i dont care either way .. i use firefox .. and i'm happy with it .. i just wish more people (developers) would opt to make their websites more W3C friendly so that everything wouldn't look all F***ed up on firefox at times .. other than that .. i dont care ..
So, does this mean that Mac OS X will be shipping without Safari, and all the different distros of Linux will be forced to remove any internet browser as well? I can understand the arguement, but if this is something you are going to attack Microsoft about, and force their hand with the OS they create - then it should be put out as a rule for ALL OS distributions. I use both Mac and PC in my day to day computer use. I don't feel forced into using one browser over another, I just choose to use IE in Windows because I like the way the browser works and integrates with Windows (unlike the other browsers). When I am using Mac I prefer to use Mozilla's Firefox Browser. To me this suit against Microsoft seems a lot like the little guy(s) going after the big fish in the pond, and in the "game" of internet browsers the best way to take out the top dog, now-a-days at least, is to file suit against them and go after them financially. Yes Firefox has better performance numbers than IE, and you don't hear very often about "holes" and "backdoors" in Firefox. The reason for this, is simply, majority of people out there that attack computers to find these vulnerabilities, look for the vulnerabilities within IE (and Windows), because they hold the majority share of internet browsers. People have heard and read all the information about the performance differences and so forth between IE and Firefox (as well the other browsers out there), but people are sticking with Microsoft due to convenience and the ability to do what they need to on the internet with IE. The choice is out there, and the fact that Microsoft bundles IE with Windows is not the problem - Windows isn't the only OS with a bundled browser. So if its a monopoly and unwanted for one, then it should or has to be done across the entire spectrum of Operating Systems.
Then Apple shouldn't ship their macs or the iphone with Safari.
Come on people, give me a break!
The real problem is the pressure MS puts on OEMs, and the inability for other software to compete due to OEM deals, closed APIs, etc.
We've already been through this.
What a complete waste of life force to carry the browser war torch in this day and age.
"Microsoft has the right to ship whatever browser they want in their OS"
No, they don't. That's the whole FUCKING POINT! Jesus, get to grip with the facts before you make a total arse of yourself, will ya?
The thing is, Microsoft would only have to be forced to unbundle IE for a while, maybe a year or two, and that would be it for them. In my opinion,the #1 reason *by far* that most people use IE is that they barely even realize that the browser is a separate application. It comes with Windows, they're used to it, they think of it as part of Windows, inseparable *the same kind of thing is true with MS Office, but that's another post).
Once people *realize* that they have a choice, once the meme gets out that you can use Browser AS or Browser B and take you pick, that choosing a browser is like choosing any other software... then IE is dead meat.
BTW, Bill Gates must secretly be a woman. A real man would have named the company "Megahard". "Microsoft" is not a name a man would choose.