Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cancels EU Antitrust Hearing
bahstid writes "The NY Times reports that Microsoft and the European Commission have canceled the only hearing planned in an antitrust investigation into the company's tying of Internet Explorer into Windows because of a dispute over the attendance of European regulators serving as advisers. As a result, the commission will reach its decision and levy a fine based on written statements from Microsoft and its adversaries. Microsoft decided against the opportunity to give oral evidence in the case after it was unable to persuade the commission to move the meeting, scheduled for June 3rd through 5th, so that it did not conflict with a global antitrust conference in Zurich that draws European antitrust regulators."
So they'll be forced to unbundle IE from Windows in the EU, that only applies to the installation DVD, OEMs will still have to install A browser on the PC before the customer buys a license to use it. What's the betting we'll see an army of Microsoft reps at the OEMs making them "offers they can't refuse" to ensure IE is their "independent choice". Nudge nudge, wink wink ;) Just keep the deal under you hat and keep marking "...... recommends Windows" on all your marketing stuff.
Netscape had the market volume and could easily have survived a few bad versions with their market share. However Microsoft made sure that didn't happen.
Microsoft was not in a position at the time to bury Netscape. They did it themselves.
Way back in April, I wrote that Netscape made the "single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make" by deciding to rewrite their code from scratch. Lou Montulli, one of the 5 programming superstars who did the original version of Navigator, emailed me to say, "I agree completely, it's one of the major reasons I resigned from Netscape." This one decision cost Netscape 3 years. That's three years in which the company couldn't add new features, couldn't respond to the competitive threads from Internet Explorer, and had to sit on their hands while Microsoft completely ate their lunch.
No one ever said Microsoft had a monopoly on all PCs.
In previous court cases MS was ruled to have monopoly influence on the "desktop operating system" market.
In fact, Apple has quite a sizable share of the PC market.
The PC market is not monopolized. There is Dell and HP and Lenovo and Apple and a hundred others. Unlike the US case, the EU market definition potentially includes OS X in the relevant market. This doesn't matter for two reasons. First, Apple doesn't have a big enough chunk for Microsoft to lose monopoly influence (by a very large margin). Second, Apple does not sell OS X into the relevant market, refusing to license it to consumers (consumers in this case being mostly OEMs like Dell and large corporations buying site licenses).
When the user needs a PC, they aren't only looking for the Windows PC with the features they want.
This is true, but not really relevant to this case. This case is about MS having tons of power because OEMs have no viable choices other than Windows when buying an OS to preinstall. It's about them using that power to push other products from separate, preexisting markets thereby undermining free trade in those markets.
So it doesn't matter that you come up with the best OS ever. If you are competing against Microsoft in the Windows PC market space, you are taking on the entrenched monopoly and will lose.
Will, Microsoft doesn't actually make a PC so it is hard to take them on at all. It is nearly impossible to win in the desktop OS space. In numerous other markets like Web browsers, it is very hard to compete because MS illegally uses their Windows monopoly in ways that make it so that even if your browser is far superior to Internet Explorer (and really what browser isn't), you're unlikely to achieve the same level of market share. That's the illegal thing here and what is detrimental to the industry and market.