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.'"

12 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. ultimately reduces consumer choice by C_Kode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by lwriemen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it does. Your argument is specious and assumes IE will always be/has always been on the Windows desktop.
      What if the consumer had both IE, Firefox, and Opera on their desktop? Why isn't this possible? If installation is such a hardship, then let the computer vendors install one or more browsers. Maybe it would be a point of competition.
      The same is true for all applications. Bundling applications used to be a point of competition for hardware vendors.

    2. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then shouldn't this be brought up with the OEMs not microsoft? The old argument about microsoft raising the license fees if the OEMs do this or that is gone see linux being offered bt Dell, HP, probable others too. If HP and Dell can include all of this other software (DVD players, DVD/CD recording software, trials of anti virus software, etc.), then the OEMs could also include firefox, opera, or another free software. Come on Dell has an option to install adobe acrobat reader which is free. Adding a check box for a web browser is not too hard. Go after the OEMs. They are already selling PCs with a non microsoft OS, adding a free web browser is not going to cost the OEMs that much more.

    3. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by Hordeking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many consumers are just to lazy to look or even care.

      Bad assumption.

      Quite a few users probably don't think they have a choice or realise that the browser is a replaceable tool.

      If you don't realise there's a choice, you will never get to the point of asking what the choices are.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    4. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't pose a security risk if it's not running. And many widely-used programs use IE embedded in them

      Did you mean to purposely contradict yourself?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by jasmusic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EverQuest 2 uses the Mozilla engine in-game, and IE for the launcher I believe. At work I've written C++ and C# software that uses the HTML control for cleanly auto-formatting status displays and rich inline help information.

      In Vista when you don't have a legitimate product key, the OS opens an IE window for you to buy one online. Likewise, the help files viewed in the HTML viewer optionally connect to the internet for extra or updated content.

      You'd think the people here on Slashdot would actually pretend to be half as fucking innovative and intelligent as they portray themselves, and realize browsers are core to 21st century operating systems.

      Governments need to get their fucking noses out of our shit before they end up with insurrection and overthrow.

    6. Re:ultimately reduces consumer choice by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was a contradiction. You argued that it is not a security problem sitting on the disk, which clearly makes sense only if you assume it will never run. (And this is shoddy thinking, good security practise recognises that if it's on the disk that increases the chance of it being run, obviously, and thus mandates complete removal. Sure, I can keep thousands of virus samples on my disk with no problems arising as long as they are not executed - but security has dropped a level because someone only needs to execute the code already on my disk, rather than add code to the system THEN execute it.)

      Then you turn around and point out that many (atrociously coded programs) likely to be encountered WILL run that code if it's on the disk. This fact (and yeah, it's very true) is exactly why having the code on the disk is a clear and present security risk - contradicting the first half of your argument very neatly.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. How, exactly?!? by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How, exactly?!? by Foofoobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean, without IE pre-installed on the box, how is Joe User going to go and download Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome?

      The consumer could choose on the OEM's site what browser to install or the OEM's could make a deal with a browser company to install their browser by default. OEMs make their money through installed software contracts. Very few people purchase computers without a browser these days. If people purchase Windows OS, they could easily put a separate IE instyall disk in the box (like they used to).

      But by separating the browser from the OS and the file browser, this gives consumers the option to attach whatever browser they want to the system rather than having the OS route all calls through their browser by default. And if the OEM's handle the install process and all the consumer has to do is make a choice from the top 5 (opera, safari, firefox, chrome and IE) then you have covered 99.99% of the market. Others can easily uninstall and reinstall their browser of choice.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  3. Am I on Slashdot or some where else? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:hypocrisy by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Standards... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!