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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Back when the antitrust trial was happening in the US, it looked like MS was going to be split up... until Bush took over and scuttled the case. At the time many were saying that Gates et al. would regret not being split up just because things like this would happen.
Being a monopoly has given MS lots of money, but it has effectively limited the ways that they can leverage themselves in new directions.
Your car analogy doesn't quite work. We're talking about two separate products; the web browser is not a part of the OS.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
That car analogy would fit better if BMW had 90+ percent of the market and is telling consumers to use only their own brand of gas in their vehicles. It's abusing their standing as a monopoly to reduce competition.
And weren't the original complaints against Microsoft by the EU around the browser being tied to the OS? I think this reflects that they didn't really change it enough and are still discouraging any competition.
So if you want a different radio, can you remove the existing radio and install a new one, or do you have to install another radio in addition to the existing radio, or the car stops working?
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.
What "viable fixes" are you talking about? Did you read the same article as the rest of us?
This is basically asking for a handout that is only going to see the lawyers win in the end.
Mozilla has "interested third party" status, they don't get part of reparations in this case. They just get to make comments to the courts about reparations. How is that a handout?
MS makes money because they make a product that for all its problems is easily usable (apparently) by 90% of the world.
So are you objecting to antitrust law in general or in this specific case? You are being vague. Do you think if I have a monopoly on something I should be able to use that to drive people who have better products than I do out of a different market, provided my product is "good enough to be usable" even if it isn't as good as the competition?
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.
Do you even understand antitrust law or this case? Telephone handsets are pretty critical to the telephone system business. Before the antitrust laws were enforced people were paying thousands of dollars over their lifetime to rent a rotary dial phone available only in black with no call waiting, answering machine, caller ID, or even speed dial. It's the same law applied in the same way that is why you can buy a functional home phone with good features for a few bucks. If you're arguing we need to change the law, I hope you have good reason. If you're arguing it does not apply to MS in this case, you'd beetter have a good reason. I'm all ears. Enlighten me.
You guys are like Obi-won Kenobi. You wave your and and spout the magic "they are a monopoly" and think this will win your argument. It doesn't.
I can't go to a store and choose a different browser or a different operating system.
Lie: Provably false.
All new computers have windows.
Lie: Provably false.
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.
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!
Oh lord, let's hope there are similar law suites against Safari in MacOS, Iceweasel in Debian, Firefox in RedHat, etc. etc. etc.
Why, what do you think they have a monopoly on Web browsers or desktop OS's? Do you even know what MS is about to be convicted of? You comment is like saying the police should arrest olympic marksmen because someone else was arrested for shooting their wife with a shotgun. If you think shooting a firearm or bundling two products in the general case is illegal, it makes sense... but of course neither is.
Just where is the dividing line between package choice in putting together a desktop environment for a user and a monopoly?
When you gain monopoly influence on a market (usually about 70%) you are then banned from bundling products from separate preexisting markets. It's clear cut and most companies go well out of their way to avoid any chance of violating said laws if they have dominance in a market.
This whole thing is bollocks to me.
So you thought you'd come here and tell us your opinions instead of spending five minutes with a book or wikipedia and figuring it out?
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...
No one is being sued. This is a criminal case being prosecuted by the EU. Opera reported the crime. Mozilla asked the court if they could comment on it since they have expert knowledge of the market.
IE is a crappy program and with half a business plan and some patience they should prevail without firing the lawyer cannons.
It's interesting how pretty much every government around the world passed laws to make actions like MS's illegal because trusts proved just the opposite over and over again. But I'm sure you know more about economics than, well all the economists.
If Microsoft has to unbundle their browser, then EVERY operating system should be required to unbundle browsers and applications as well.
If Albert Fish has to spend years in prison, then EVERY person who cut up meat with a cleaver should be required to spend years in prison as well.
After all, just because Fish was cutting up live children instead of beef steaks is unimportant just as the fact that MS bundled a browser with their monopolized OS and undermined the market is unimportant. We all now it is the act that counts, not the act in context of its effect.