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 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 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?
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.
Haha, nice!
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.
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.
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.
If i was Microsoft I'd probably abandon IE and just ship firefox with some extensions for compatibility. Why bother with R&D on a browser when so many others are doing the work for you for free.
Of course knowing MS, they would ship IE and firefox, but it would be firefox version 1.5 and buggy as shit. Or they would provide some special hooks to IE to make it 3 times faster or something.
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.
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.
You know, that doesn't really make any sense. Ubuntu writes less than 0.1% of the code in their distribution (probably less).
Your example of different terminals in Ubuntu doesn't work well. Are you also suggesting that MS should include Windows Shell replacements as well (eg LiteStep)?
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.
If by monopoly you mean "Windows has been identified as a good target for easy extra taxes by the EU," then sure, but it still only matters in the context of a corrupt government organization trying to steal cash and promote their local under-performing competitor.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
"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.
Your example of different terminals in Ubuntu doesn't work well. Are you also suggesting that MS should include Windows Shell replacements as well (eg LiteStep)?
I think he means applications like Apt and Synaptic (the latter, I know, not terminal), which make it easy to download a browser without having one installed.
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
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
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...
Do you not see how everything you said applies to your own post as well, and to mine? That mean's you're either a hypocrite, too stupid to realize, or haven't had your morning coffee yet. Also, there is no other forum to discuss this particular topic in, and no other way to resolve the situation, so what would you have the OP do?
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
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...
It's monopoly abuse. Windows has a desktop monopoly. What Ubuntu or Apple does is not that important, they don't have a monopoly.
Completely disagree. To me, the term "monopoly" (which seems to be bandied about far more than it should be these days) is just code for "your company/product is exceptionally popular and dominates the market". What matters is if 'x' company did something illegal to attain that position, but at this point, the whole monopoly aspect is irrelevant. _ALL_ individuals and companies should be penalized if they break the law, their status as a monopoly is irrelevant. If Microsoft breaks the law, take them to court, but further, apply the same standard to Apple and Ubuntu. Microsoft _DID_ do some pretty dodgy stuff to attain its position, and consequently, has been penalized for it, several times, in several countries; completely fine. But I can not rationalise as fair the notion that a completely different standard should be applied to an entity for no express reason other than its popularity.
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.
This comparison is in my view invalid. The philosophy behind Ubuntu is completely different to that of Windows and many other proprietary operating systems. Comparisons and debates about superiority/inferiority aside, neither side is fundamentally "wrong", but just different ways of doing things. In Microsoft's case, they develop a product wholly on their own, and as such, wish to distribute it as such without 3rd-party products. I see no problem with this. Further, I can just as easily install another application on a Windows system as a Ubuntu system; what differs is how I do this and the mechanism in place to accomplish it. An Ubuntu user might apt-get it or use Synaptic, a Windows user might browse to the products web-site, download and run the executable. But I have Firefox/Opera/Chrome installed on my Windows box alongside IE, with Firefox as the default browser, and I've yet to find any instance of Windows trying to stop me or inhibit these applications from running to their full capacity. Further, many Linux distributions only install one graphical web-browser, and as such, are in many respects no different to Windows in what they offer out of the box at the GUI level. If you wish to install a different one, go for it, Ubuntu nor Windows will try and stop you.
Yes, IE (until now) can't entirely be removed in full, I'll grant you that. And the original bundling of the browser with the OS is debateably unsound and quite likely illegal as well, depending on your perspective, I'll grant you that as well. Consequently, MS was slapped with fines and various additional oversight requirements. But, the present reality is that there are technical issues with removing IE as a result of the course of history, primarily todo with 3rd-party application compatibility, in the form of programs expecting the IE rendering engine to be present. This being the case, there are considerations involved, and while it can be removed, things will break, and I can guarantee you will witness this in the EU IE-less addition.
"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."
Oh, please, please, do. The majority of Microsoft revenue comes from the EU. Please do this, now, Microsoft! What better way to "win" than to pull out of your largest market, force people to look into alternatives such as OO.Org, demonstrate that reliance on even the largest closed-source company actually puts governments and businesses into a WORSE position, and forces people to think "Fine. Goodbye." the next time they think about buying an MS or similar product.
It will never happen, but everyone who *knows* IT would want to this happen. It'd guarantee work for the next five years for me, converting over people to OS alternatives (which I already do, as well as work with MS day-in-day-out). The consumers WOULDN'T scream, they just wouldn't be able to get an MS PC for a while, maybe a year or two, and they probably wouldn't notice. And then instantly Dell, etc. would just start selling Linux or whatever the hell they wanted and suddenly save a TON of money that they can profit from by charging the "normal" price (+Windows tax).
This is what **I** want. What MS does is immaterial at this point, it's up to the EU. But pulling out would be the most STUPID business decision in the history of the world... in fact MS Eire / UK would probably be sued out of existence by its shareholders within a year.
I'll bite, and yes I know I will regret it. Let me preface this with the fact that I have a Mac and use Linux and rarely use a Windows program, so I don't think I qualify as a MS fanboy. In fact I'm their worst critic when it comes to software quality.
I see this as the EU putting the screws to another US company, and this behavior has continued to escalate since it started with the creation of the EU. I think it's getting a little out of hand when one US company can file a grievance with the EU against another US company. Of course, the EU is happy to oblige since it means more money for them and as a bonus they get to punish a US company.
Anyway, back to the immediate topic of Microsoft's so-called monopoly. Since you are not required to buy a computer with Windows this can't be a monopoly. I would call this more of a unfair market advantage based upon past behavior to accrue market share. Who knew that being the only operating system that a consumer would want, could afford, and ran on a standard PC would be considered bad behavior.
In other words, there was always an opportunity for another OS to exist look at Linux for example. Just don't expect that OS to become the market leader overnight. Everyone forgets how long it took for window's market share to get this large. Not to mention that even with the advancements toward end-user friendliness done by Ubuntu, it's not the best computing experience available out of the box.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
I don't think it is as clearly defined as you think.
Ubuntu does have a default terminal depending on your choice of Ubuntu, Xbuntu, or Kubuntu, and it does have a default browser. It does allow you to install Firefox and it's installed by default too. Ubuntu does allow you to install any program you want.
Speaking of Firefox, Google pays Firefox to make Google the default search engine. How does this fit within your moral equation?
Microsoft comes with a default terminal, browser, etc. and Windows also allows you to install any program you want just like Ubuntu.
Microsoft also being the author of IE is immaterial. In fact, by Microsoft offering so many "accessories" with its Windows OS from the beginning is what helped Windows succeed. It was the only way Microsoft could solve the "chicken and the egg" problem. They couldn't sell an OS with no applications and no applications would be made for Windows without the market share to justify the expense.
Microsoft is not without guilt and they have done some shitty things to maintain a majority market share. However neither Canonical nor Apple have room to complain about bundling.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Then you'd be an idiot. One of the nice things about sovereignty is you can do whatever the fuck you like. Like, say, declaring certain formerly copyright software to be public domain.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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 +
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!
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.
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 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.
No. Let's say I take you to court for trespassing because you walked on my lawn. In the process, you damaged my flower bed.
A court decides that you did indeed trespass on my property and you did indeed damage my flower bed. A judgement is placed in my favor for the cost of replacing the damaged flowers.
You were not convicted of a crime. There will be nothing on your criminal record.
You might still be called a criminal, but you are not a *convicted* criminal. A conviction can only occur in a criminal court.
Why is that, you might wonder? Because civil liability and criminal conviction have two different standards. In fact, someone can be found not guilty of a criminal act, but found liable if taken to civil court.
That's what happened to OJ, for instance. Sure, OJ was likely guilty, especially in light of later events... but the fact of the matter is, he was never convicted of murder, even though he was found liable for it in a civil court.
So no, just because you think something is true doesn't make it so.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here