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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing. Seriously, I hope you're an astroturfer, instead of just an honest someone they've managed to completely mislead.
The EU tried them a while ago for anti-competitive practices, fined them, and forced them to release a bunch of code.
Wrong. It forced them to document APIs for communication between two of their products so people making the one that was not Windows on the desktop could compete. They even let them charge for said documentation.
Microsoft complied. The EU came back again and said it wasn't enough, fined them again, and forced them to release more.
Actually, MS refused to comply, which is why the EU continued to fine them until they did comply, that is fully document the APIs so others could compete. MS just tried to pull a fast one by releasing incomplete and incorrect APIs and hoping the EU would not call them on it.
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.
Yeah, governments often recommend against doing business with repeat offender criminals, but the EU never said they would not use MS, they are just not a preferred vendor.
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.
Wow, you never get tired of being wrong do you? There is no lawsuit. Opera reported a crime. They did not file a lawsuit. The crime they reported was antitrust abuse. The fact that the antitrust abuse happens by way of bundling does not imply bundling is illegal in the general case. Your argument is like claiming someone being charged with murder for shooting someone should be let go, because lots of hunters and target shooters fire guns as well and are not arrested. You're fundamentally failing to comprehend either the crime or the reason for the law and basically being an embarrassment to people who bother to learn about something before spouting off about it.
Geez, can you leave them alone already?
Geez, can't they stop committing crimes already? They only have a million lawyers.
If people want firefox, they can download firefox or opera or anything.
Irrelevant. It does not mitigate the antitrust abuse.
If they don't want Windows, there's plenty of free alternatives.
Irrelevant, MS is not charged with having a monopoly. Having a monopoly is legal.
Fine, you think their products suck. Don't use them.
For OEMs the option of not buying Windows to pre-install on computers they sell is not an option. It sucks, but it isn't illegal. Making them take IE too is illegal. Even if I never use Windows or IE, they're still costing me money when I do Web development. They're costing Opera and Mozilla money every day as well, and they're doing so by breaking the law. If I were breaking the law and costing you money would your ignoring that law (the one everyone else has to obey) seem like a reasonable option to you, just because other people have choices? How does that help you?
But don't hold a gun to their heads and tell them they can't sell a certain product.
But here's the thing. They can make and sell IE all they want. They can fricking bundle it with MS brand mice. They just can't legally bundle it with Windows and they've been breaking that law and counting on it to make them more money than it c
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.
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!