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."
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 agree completely. I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane. I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.
Of course, not bundling a browser is problematic as well. The technologically illiterate, and even the semi-skilled could not figure out how to download a browser without having a browser to start with. All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
He wasn't stealing it. He just wanted to check how difficult it is to carry the TV around, in order to make a more informed purchase decision.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
If Microsoft were based in Europe this wouldn't be happening.
I doubt that. Many european companies have been fined by the EU for illegal business practices.
New things are always on the horizon
MS's plan is to allow OEMs to include whatever browser they want in the EU version of Windows. No manufacturer is going to be foolish enough to ship a system without some sort of browser installed.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
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
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.
SAP
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That wouldn't actually be a bad idea. When the user first turns on the computer, a screen should pop up with the following:
As a result of recent EU regulations, please choose a preferred internet browser.
That should get people riled up!
negative, read groklaw for instance and the commissions statements:
roughly: "we want the users to have more choice, not less"
Microsoft does the ONE thing that will hurt innovation in the long run and increases the chance that users will end up getting IE instead of an alternative browser, by not providing any method at all to chose an alternative browser easily. You can bet your ass that "Microsoft Windows without IE" will have big fat "INSTALL IE NOW" icons on the desktop and popups appearing randomly.
The European commission is 100% correct for condemning this move.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if IE is integrated in the OS but able to be disabled, which is far less harmful than this move of Microsoft.
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...
"commentary on how Slashdot is hugely Anti-MS to the point of being retarded"
Which is why the first three comments are pro MS, and modded up, I suppose.
emt 377 emt 4