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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
It takes away from Gimp downloads.
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?
Yesterday the personal comments of one Firefox developer/architect were made into a Slashdot story. The comments of one of the actual executives, which said basically the opposite, were ignored. I can see why one might get the wrong idea, but you have to pay attention to the context. Sure, the guy was a bozo, but most of us knew that yesterday.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Open a command prompt, type 'ftp releases.mozilla.org', log in as anonymous, then type 'get /mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe'
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.