Slashdot Mirror
EC To Pursue Antitrust Despite Microsoft's IE Move
snydeq writes "The European Commission will proceed with its antitrust case against Microsoft regardless of Microsoft's decision to strip IE from Windows 7 in Europe. Europe's top antitrust regulator said the EC would draw up a remedy that allows computer users 'genuine consumer choice,' noting that stripping out IE from Windows 'may potentially be positive,' but 'rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.' Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera, whose complaint to the European Commission at the end of 2007 sparked the initial antitrust investigation, said Microsoft is 'trying to set the remedy itself by stripping out IE. ... Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy,' he said."
I know this is /., where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity. But the EC is way out of line on this one.
First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's, when browsers were still a bit of a novelty. But it's 2009. *EVERY* OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple, Ubuntu, everyone. Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else. Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player, or calculator, or text editor, etc. How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC? Are they supposed to have Steve Ballmer commit seppuku? Announce they're going out of business? Drop to their knees and give handjobs to all the EC commissioners? If even a move that will put them at a serious disadvantage in competing with Apple and Linux isn't enough--then *WHAT EXACTLY IS*?
At this point the EC isn't helping the consumer, they just seem like they're being spiteful. They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service.
Okay diehard MS bashers, flame away.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Even if I could understand / appreciate the whole "anti-trust" thing, and conceded that it was the government's place to interfere to stop monopolies (which I can't), how is it EVER logical to suggest that it's up to a for-profit company to provide "consumer choice" by touting its competitors' products? That's just totally ridiculous. You say that Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling IE with its software, great, I could argue that, that shouldn't be against the law, et cetera (but I won't, because it's not really relevant to the matter-at-hand), but how can you suggest that rather than just making them not bundle IE, you should ALSO make them provide ipso facto advertising (for free) for their competitors by offering so-called "genuine consumer choice"?
On the basis? That they're NOT bundling IE now? I despise Microsoft as much as the next Ubuntu DVD-wielding geek, but if they pull IE out of Windows 7 in Europe, along with the stuff they opened up (apparently to the EC's satisfaction) haven't they complied with the EC's demands? Does the EC have something else on Microsoft?
I'm just a bit puzzled here. Someone enlighten me.
My blog
I know it's a bit trolloish bit I'm pissed ans I',m ust saying.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
When Pat Buchanan wins.
0% ACID compliance, super-slow page loads, and no support for non-english character sets.
I see the tag damnedifyoudodamnedifyoudont, but I think the tag damnedbecauseyoudid is more appropriate. Do you not put a suspected thief on trial because he put down the TV he was stealing when the policeman stared right at him?
You have to stop and take a look at this from the EU point of view.
In the US, we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual. In the EU, they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong.
Bracketing non-EU style commendation onto the situation is risking stereotypical generalization (and milk soaked Wheaties) - walk in their shoes a bit first, before you firebomb their reactions.
I agree with your arguments, but I'd like to point out that there is one way to get Firefox without IE, or any other browser. You can open an FTP session from the Windows command prompt. I know because I did it for a friend who's IE stopped working completely.
Granted, the average computer user won't be savvy enough to do this.
This space left intentionally blank.
I may be well behind on my law knowledge, but what law is this breaking? I mean I understand if MS prevented other browsers from being installed on Windows, but is this not similar to, for example, having a default terminal in Ubuntu that ships with the distribution, and the user has a choice to use their own any time they choose?
How would the average user download another browser without IE installed?
i completely agree with this. im fucking sick to death of the EU on this subject.
i just want to be able to open an internet browser without having to fuck about clicking on which i want. they are all the same, the one preinstalled is good enough.
I mean, have you seen the economy lately? How else are they supposed to have a balanced budget without leveling massive fines on American companies?
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Thanks Opera and EC for bringing in a great old friend to the Consumer / Business world...idiots...
I hate Microsoft as much as any one. I mean I *really really* hate the Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft - A LOT! But for God's sake, parent is exactly right - does anybody think the glorious EU (NAFTA on steroids) meddling in *anything* is a good idea, much less OS design?
This is a GOOD THING. I can't believe all the rabid anti-EU postings here. Somebody finally has the courage to stand up to Microsoft, and you people want to sting them up!
Look: Microsoft has obtained their monopoly by unethical means. They have maintained that monopoly by illegal means. They are illegally leveraging their monopoly to extend their dominance into other markets.
Thank goodness the EU has the guts to fight this.
When did Venezuela join the EU?
Microsoft could have bundled in an old version of firefox and restricted it to only being able to access add-ons from an approved source on microsofts site that you need a windows live ID to access. Do the same with the 8.0 version of Opera with a few settings "mis-set"
what is a real issue today is the ability of buying a PC either desktop or laptop with an OS other than microsoft, [eg] FreeDOS, BSD, Linux, not giving consumers a choice of OS when buying a PC is the bigger monopolistic crime...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...
And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Cheers,
now this is interesting. the eu does something to try to stop the most abusive monopolistic company of modern times, a company which costs the economies of the world billions of dollars every year, a company which forces drm and ignorance down the consumers' throats and what happens? suddenly the eu is in the wrong because "it's not america". i only hope most of the replies up to now have been astroturfing by microsoft, because if they aren't this paints a rather sorry picture of america and americans in general.
Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market. Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.
The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.
Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars. The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"
Microsoft complies, stripping out the IE user application from copies of Windows 7 to be distributed in Europe.
Opera and the EC, faced with getting exactly what they asked for, are now mad again because what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS. They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).
I'm sorry, but there is a line being crossed here where we went from semi-valid to out-right ridiculous. Strip down the OS, fine. Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system. Let retailers sell $5 CDs containing Firefox, Opera, Safari etc with their copies of Windows 7. If you want the OS to be a neutral platform for applications, then it has to be just that. If you try to mandate what browser IS bundled, you're defeating the whole point and just creating a new monopoly for whoever the lucky guy is whose browser you choose (likely Opera).
Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated. With IE currently holding around 41% of the total market, and Firefox with 47% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) it's pretty clear that a) it's not a monopoly anymore and b) bundling is not hurting other browsers.
What this really feels like is Opera is tired of being in last place (and probably especially pissed that up-start Chrome blew past them in just a month or two) and instead of capturing marketshare with a more compelling product, they're going to try and legislate themselves into a stronger market position.
Argue the right or wrong about MS and the browser bundling.. ok. but when MS says..ok.. we'll NOT do what you said we are doing and thats not good enough.. it just seems like a piss fight that the EC *knows* they can win and will make it unbearably obvious for the mere purpose of rubbing MS (and by inference the US) nose in it. We're big, we're bad. and we make a difference now that we're all together. I think it ticked em off when MS said fine we wont squirm for you any more, we'll just screw you back with no browser at all.
Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows
There have always been plenty of issues that pissed me off about Microsoft, and I have always resented them for having a closed source rendering engine in their browser, full of flaws, that ultimately ruined 90%+ of the HTML on the Internet.
But the statement above scares the shit out of me. A software vendor is not allowed to bundle its products? WTF?? The government has waaaay too much power when they can tell a company that bundling its products is not legal. Microsoft's actions were highly anti-competitive when they made IE an integral part of the Windows operating system. That was obvious to everybody. They are on two completely different levels of functionality.
But a software manufacturer has every right (IMHO) to encourage the use of ALL of its products.
There is this most amazing shill swarm going on all over the web because of this issue. On comments to the New York Times article, even on Microsoft's own web site where they calmly state that out of respect to the EU ruling they would desist from bundling IE in Europe, the comment section is filled from comments from their own sock puppets. It is time somebody spoke out about this. This is no less than the "Death of Web 2" and free speech. Just watch how fast this gets modded to oblivion, for example, in spite of the fact that Slashdot has long been known as a place where the voice of the people can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out by the mighty roar of the powerful.The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
Rule number one for keeping a tyrant in power is to control information. If you control information, you control the truth. By artificially keeping Slashdot skewed in their favour, Microsoft is trying to hide the truth from the public. Their strategy is failing, and what we see right now is their usual gut reaction: try to throw more people and more money at the problem. However, the harder they try, the more light will shine on their shady methods and expose them.
Come on. I mean, who HASN'T been thrilled to at least have SOME browser after a fresh build of a Windows OS? I mean, at the very least, if you're a Firefox/Opera/etc fan, at least having IE on the box allows you to go download that other browser of choice.
Would you prefer you had to go digging through the drawers and cabinets for your Firefox installer CD? Get real.
Fuck you, OP, and everyone who uses mod-point-martyrdom, to express their point of view.
"I have karma to burn"
"I'll probably get modded down for this but..."
"Ok, flame away"
Just make your point, and leave that crap out next time.
Ok - Who the fuck modded this up? This is just a Off-Topic as it comes and Redundant as well.
Why the hell would you make a Redundant, Off-Topic post complaining about posters bitching about mods?
You have no point - Leave your post out ENTIRELY. (Even if you're right!)
"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.
Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented? WTF is going on with the EU?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.
"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.
Uhh? The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine. From MS's blog:
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.
This space for rent.
The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.
The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.
Evidence is everywhere of this. Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share? Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes, that is due cause for the law to step in.
That's plain old socialism right there.
I really think this is such bullsh**. What law is this breaking? This "monopoly" law that I keep hearing over and over, what defines a monopoly? Over 50.1% of the overall market share? Im interested to know what happens say 5 years from now if Apple takes over from Microsoft as the "monopoly" holder for desktops, and MS sues Apple over their bundling of Safari. Now does that mean that Apple will have to allow the Windows versions of all Microsoft products to run on their hardware? Or even better, allow MacOSX to be installed on non-Mac hardware? I think the MS bashing, while great fun to watch, is getting a bit ridiculous, and MS should sue the EC for unfair business practices.
If MS were to just unbundle it all, they could get the advantage of lots of distributors innovating, much as linux and bsd benefit from constant experimenting and conversation surrounding their various distributions.
MS would no doubt continue as "the" distributor, but they would gain much from outside input. Of course, much of the outside input would consist of imitating the rich world outside the MS closed ecosystem but even so, MS couldn't help but benefit.
I for one would love to see a Debian GNU/mskernel port. Or even a Debian MS/Linux port. Okay, maybe not to use, but definitely to see.
just as microsoft chose the 'smartass' method of 'letting the pc manufacturers install the browser' as a 'solution'. which would amount to, well, ie getting installed.
glad to see European regulators are not stupid and bought out as the u.s. ones.
Read radical news here
If I were the head of Microsoft I'd be tempted to simply say, "Fine. Goodbye" and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently. Then let's see who starts screaming, the lawyers, or the consumers. Microsoft (or any company) can never satisfy a bunch of lawyers out to rack up legal bills and who really don't give a damn one way or the other but need the work.
GET OUT MICROSOFT. Get out Google. Get of any EU countries and focus on Asia, Eastern Europe, and North and South America. Screw the EU.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly anymore than BMW has a monopoly on certain items they put in THEIR products and they are not told, "Hey, you can't sell that new M3 with just one type of engine manufacturer... no no.. .ya have to include a Ford Focus in that M3 to make it a fair market."
Imagine if every company who made something was told they had to offer additional options. Hey, can't sell that chair with 4 legs, you need to also make one with 3 and 5 legs to be fair.
What a joke.
Go buy a Mac. Get a life.
EC wants RESULTS. not smartass escape moves what would amount to the SAME thing in the end. like the 'let pc manufacturers install the browser'. which amounts to Ie getting installed, flat.
European regulators are not sold out and dumb as the american counterparts.
im neither in europe, nor in united states. but even i came to know the difference, just by looking at the events.
Read radical news here
Stop with the stupidity, enough with the ignorance: MS is treated differently because it enjoys a monopoly, and has a proven track record of abusing it.
1) EU fines levied on MS for abusing the market are pocket change in comparison to EU budget or budgets of most of EU countries (I'd guess they are even smaller than productivity/innovation losses due to their practices)
2) EU fines primarily (both in number of cases and fines amounts) companies based in...EU! Surprise, surprise... (US media just doesn't report on it, why would they?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
'genuine consumer choice,' Wouldn't this also mean that the customer chose to buy this computer with this software? They should only be arguing with PC manufactures who chose to only sell there systems with Microsoft Windows. There the ones not gicing the consumer a choice. Every operating system comes with a browser. If they didn't how would they get online to download a browser they'd prefer.
Stop complaining and stop trying to sue everyone that's making money while your not.
It's as free and fair as a witch hunt.
Welcome to the EU, we hope you enjoy your stay.
If you do not like the current conditions in the EU, we would kindly ask you to leave, and preferably go to the "Land of the Free" where you can literally do whatever, or whoever, you want without any consequences.
Trolls trolling trolls, etc.
But on a more serious note: grow a pair (EU) or get back to kiddy school (US)
Microsoft wouldn't have survived a year if they started in the EU.
The key to me is more of 'us against them' ie: the EU against the US. Yes there have been actions against European cos, but the bulk of suits are against MSFT, followed by Intel, Apple and several Chinese and Jaspanese companies The EU is exhibiting phobic behavior akin to pre WWII behavior, only on a "legal" basis. Maybe the US, China and Japan need to react accordingly with European companies, although the current US political climate will dictate otherwise. What is wrong with packaging YOUR browser in YOUR OS? Why share your MP codecs without reciprocity?????? This whole affair stinks of protectionism.Shall we in the US tell Mercedes that they need to showcase frod, chevy and toyota in their dealerships? Maybe the Commerce Dept needs to stepup to the plate and do their job of helping Am business overseas
It's not that they bundle a browser. It's that they bundle IE, which through MS's previous law-breaking, spawned an ecosystem of non-standard, IE-only websites. These days, those 'websites' are largely web-based corporate functions (like time tracking systems and incident tracking systems). Those packages have been able to continue down their IE-only garden paths on the assumption (supported by Microsoft marketing) that IE will already be there on 95% of computers sold, and if a business standardizes on Windows, 100%.
That has contributed to Windows lock-in, which was the basis of the original IE antitrust action. So, while it'd be okay if Microsoft were to bundle Firefox or Chrome, bundling IE is still problematic. Now, they could remove all the non-standard stuff from IE and then bundle it relatively harmlessly. But, of course, the non-standard stuff is the reason Microsoft built IE in the first place - so they could extend their monopoly position to the web, making non-Windows desktop systems that much less viable. And it would've worked, except for Firefox, which being open source was not 'killable'. As it is, the web has gravitated towards standards despite IE. But that'd have been much harder to do without a first-class browser like Firefox able to survive in the vacuum created by IE. And without firefox, there probably never would've been Safari, iPhone, Android, etc.
Still, even though Microsoft hasn't been as successful as they'd have liked in monopolizing the Internet, they still have had some success, especially in the corporate arena. So what's the EU to do? Nothing?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Honestly, I just want to be able to uninstall IE, outlook express and anything else that comes preloaded on the OS via the add/remove programs icon and it really go away and not just pretend to and once that is done I don't want to hear anything more about it from windows update...
That really isn't hard but Microsoft would rather try and make this into a all or nothing type thing when it's totally clear it doesn't have to be.
I will agree that the EU needs money and Microsoft has lots of that. Welcome to the depression boys!
Anyway, who's going to buy Windows 7? Everyone is broke and is still using WinXP and will be for the next 40 years because normal people don't care about new features as long as they can download their porn...
And there is no technical reason for there to be a pre-installed browser, as you don't need to have a full browser UI to be able to download a browser to install. A program to download the latest installer over the internet via http or ftp is relatively trivial nowadays.
Actually there are several good reasons to ship a pre-installed browser...
For starters - yeah, it'd be reasonably easy to put an installer on the machine that can, without "browsing the web", get you a web browser. But such a program is a bit of a problem for non-technical reasons: does it just install one particular web browser? Does it give the user a short list of choices? Which choices do and don't make the cut? Is Microsoft seen as "endorsing" or "supporting" these choices if it ships them? (Not really fair to put that burden on them...) Or if it gives the user total freedom to download any browser - then how does the user find that browser? Be sure to consider the problem from the perspective of someone who may not know the FTP URL for the latest version of their favorite browser. (I know I don't...) The common method a user uses for installing a web browser begins with "launch a web browser" - as in "launch a web browser and go to mozilla.com"... Obviously this is a lot easier if there's some kind of web browser already present.
Then you have to consider what else a web browser may be used for: the rendering engine (and possibly the network part as well) may be exposed as program modules for application writers to use. If your API already provides all the core components of your web browser, it's practically nonsensical to not include the GUI front end that turns that into a "web browser application"...
So I'd say my opinion on this whole matter is a bit split - on the one hand I don't like that Microsoft is able to leverage their dominance of the desktop OS market to get loads of people using their defective web browser - but on the other hand I don't entirely agree that they shouldn't be allowed to bundle it, or that they should be required to bundle other browsers that they didn't write and shouldn't be expected to support.
Bow-ties are cool.
That makes as much sense as buying a car and then being forced to go out and buy a steering wheel. The car will drive without the steering wheel, but you won't get to where you want to go.
Ohhhh... It all makes sense, now! Thank you for rephrasing the discussion in the context of cars: truly a problem domain which is like second nature to me, and to everyone else I know!
Bow-ties are cool.
But on a more serious note: grow a pair (EU) or get back to kiddy school (US) Microsoft wouldn't have survived a year if they started in the EU.
The irony being that the US was particularly toothless with it's attempts to deal with MS; at least the EU is doing something!
Ladies and Gentlemen, the solution to the Microsoft IE issue is realistically simple. If Microsoft is violating the Anti-Trust Law because it imposes the use of their browser on the Public when they purchase the Windows software, it follows that the removal of said browser places Microsoft well within the Anti-Trust Law. Now, for the Courts to turn and demand that Microsoft provide âoemultiple browser choicesâ as a remedy, may satisfy the quest for vengeance of a certain group out their, but it also causes the public to have unsubstantiated guarantee that Microsoft considers said browsers to be on the same level of compatibility with their Windows product as their IE browser. Furthermore, the displaying of a âoe Warningâ prior to choosing a browser other than the Microsoft IE, will, for the most part, in our âoefast food drive-thruâ generation go unheeded and overlooked, leading to many dissatisfied customers. The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box. Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.
The problem with both the DOJ and EU is it is always to late.
In 1994-1996 when Netscape, Dr DOS, WordPerfect, Novell, etc were getting their fudge packed by Microsoft, nothing was being done. Then in sweeps the DOJ in the late 90's and by the time anything is done in 2002....all of those companies that were wronged are out of business. Or had dropped those products or are in a different business.
You could slap them on the wrist for killing the competition half a decade ago. You could totally ignore the competition they were killing now in a different way. You could enrich the government with fines from Microsoft. What you could not do, is make the other companies that were harmed "right" again.
If the EU lets Microsoft unbundled. Then they just offer OEMs advertising money and discounts (all in backroom deals) to ONLY bundle IE. The problem is the screwed up position MS has put everyone in by abusing their monopoly power. The marketplace has not decided IE was the best browser. OEMs will not be deciding on the best browser on their own, they will be twisted to use IE only. That leaves the poor choice of bundling multiple web browsers. Making the government decide which browsers do or don't go into Windows is a poor choice. But not as poor as letting Microsoft decide.
vi +
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant
Go fucking learn english dipshit.
How many people is Microsoft paying to post "how terrible this is"? And anything along those lines.
As the saying goes:
Karma is a b!tch!
Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else.
Microsoft owns over 80% of the market -- or is it still over 90%?
Certain things only become illegal once you are actually a monopoly.
How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install
As a theoretical matter, there's always the Windows FTP client.
As a practical matter, most people don't keep install discs for their OSes, either. If they do, they keep install discs for printers, cameras, etc, despite that those mostly end up adding unneeded bloatware... not to mention antivirus, office suites, and other things considered essential.
So, I see no reason an OEM can't install a browser, or an end-user can't download one on another computer and transfer it over.
Slashdot is actually biased the wrong way, here -- to us, once a computer has a web browser, everything is possible, because we would rather download software, for free or otherwise. I'll download those printer drivers sooner than I'll pop in a disc. But the average end-user does none of these things -- they want everything set up for them, and whatever happens before that point is magic -- something their kid who's good with computers does, or something Dell does before they ship it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
A lot of people will say something like "Microsoft broke the law", actually they were found to be a monopoly like 15 years or so ago. That in itself is not breaking the law.
In America, we have a ton of monopolies and they are far worse than Microsoft.
I would say having less choices for cable, phone service and Internet service are far worse than Microsoft and Apple is far worse as well. They can get away with whatever they want.
Europe is just horrible. They are not at all fair to American companies and you know what? Governments can be monopolies as well right.
Microsoft has been trying to do everything it can to please the EU and the EU is still aggressive.
I personally would like to give the EU the finger double dipped and put them back to the dark ages again.
I am not a Microsoft fan, they made their own bed on the original issue, but now it's a different story. The only left now is that the EU prevents the sale of windows in Europe.
**** Europe. Let them eat sh*t all the way back to rome.
by the looks of the number of their shills here. The number of people who profess their misunderstanding, or demonstrate their deliberate, willful, ignorance of the concepts involved in antitrust law, must be exceeding 50%. This is an incredibly high percentage for /.'s target user group. My bet is that the demonstrated ignorance of antitrust issues is here is greater than that found in the general public.
To me this shows a purposeful, coordinated agenda by the anti-EC and pro-MS posters here.
Looks like "The crazy" is stong in this one...
Most people dont even read the comments on slashdot. If you should be upset about anything, you should first ask slashdot management why they accept huge $$$ from Microsoft to advertize their products? They are using Microsoft money to help keep their site running.
Ohhh, I wonder what paranoid delusions your tiny brain can come up with. Haha you're like the Glen Beck of slashdot. Cmon go nuts ! entertain me ! Do the Penguin Dance !! /Clap Clap
Sorry, that's a statement from Microsoft about what they are going to do, declaring that it will be "ok now." It isn't a ruling by the EC in any sense of the word.
Given that the browser illegal tactics took over 15 years and that OEM illegal contracts took about the same time to be ruled against and changed, how long do you think it would take an illegal contract to make OEM's include IE in their builds to get "We recommend Windows 7" and the marketing money that accrues?
For a start, we'd have to see the conditions of the marketing money, which will be under NDA so a court case to get that will have to happen.
It can't be "If you put 'We recommend Windows 7'" on your site for all PC's compatible with it, you get the full rate", can it.
Microsoft said so when they dropped IE for Mac when Safari came out.
The Microsoft rep said they could not compete with a browser built into the OS.
Despite having 40Bn in the bank...
If it's a court ruling it's a conviction.
If it's a crime the court convicted you of, then it's a criminal conviction.
Please get your head out of your flabby arse and look at the world.
And if Apple had a monopoly in the OS market, you'd have a point, but since it doesn't, why don't you just shut the fuck up?
I'm a European, and even I see how ridiculous this has become. Microsoft muscled out web browsing companies by providing IE "free" with their OS (actually the costs of the OS include the development and maintenance of IE), but if they strip out the browser from the OS AND pay a monsterous fine then I don't see how it could be any more of an issue. They certainly should not have to include competitor's programs.
What about Apple and their MAC OS email, web browser etc that they include for "free"?
It's a crazy situation. The victims of the browser thing aren't even getting proceeds of the fine. It's just another way for the politicians to get fat.
I have to wonder just how mr Joe Public will get a browser in the first place. I doubt many of their target audience is going to know command line FTP, or can be bothered to download it via a second PC.
Unless, and I'm guessing here, there's some sort of windows update which installs IE as soon as the OS is installed!! That allows them to say that they haven't bundled it, while at the same time giving IE as the only option. Unless there's the option to pick another (possibly via some registry hack or other almost impossible windows hack that non-savvy users won't know about)
Giving users a choice of nothing is going to cause a bit of a public backlash - which will go one of two ways;
I can't believe Microsoft would be quite that stupid, so it looks to me like they are trying for the sympathy vote, basically hoping to turn any complaints for their own non-compliance back on the EU.
It wasn't MS's plan, that was what the Commission wanted for years but MS refused to comply, now they're just doing the legwork to make sure the results will be still be relevant now the case has dragged on for so long.
It was MS's actions that have made the competition commissioner look so unfavourably upon them.
Oh and they will most likely OK this, not everything happens at internet speeds, the machinery of government is slow.