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"?
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.
It's monopoly abuse. Windows has a desktop monopoly. What Ubuntu or Apple does is not that important, they don't have a monopoly. If you do want to talk about the situation of Ubuntu and comparing it to Windows. Windows comes with IE and only IE or now maybe no browser at all (even less choice). Ubuntu comes with several terminal programs on the CD/DVD and you can install an other just and just as easily remove the one that was default.
New things are always on the horizon
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.
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,
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.
Microsoft isn't really an American company, they have offices, design centers, and so on all over the world and can safely be considered multinational.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
no. ubuntu is not a monopoly. ubuntu does not make money out of supplying a terminal. ubuntu does not drive competitors out of business by making dash the default terminal. ubuntu does not package its own terminal either, because ubuntu does not have its own terminal. so basically the two cases are pretty dissimilar, but i imagine you already knew that and were just trolling.
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.
"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.
djupedal (584558) Alter Relationship on Friday June 12, @12:03PM (#28309309) 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.
A good example of this; Open source solutions, a free alternative or try to promote a free GUI alternative (opera, Ubuntu, Firefox). While the EU is more likely to enforce some business restrictions; a top down approach. This is a predominantly American website, so of course you're going to see mods like that. And yes; some are of course going to be xenophobic (goodness knows we're a xenophobic nation), but the way we want solutions is simply inherently different (I believe) because of our culture.
So when the EC does what we see to be an overbearing government standard to protect its people, some Americans see it as trying to interfere with fair business practices. I'm not here trying to convince you that you're wrong, but perhaps being a bit quick to judge.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
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.
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...
Well I guess that is true, true "communism" never existed...
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 +