Slashdot Mirror
EC Sends Statement of Objections To Microsoft For Violating Anti-Trust Agreement
dkleinsc writes "Three years ago, Microsoft came to an agreement with EU regulators that required them to provide users with a choice of web browsers. Last July, they found Microsoft in breach of that agreement. Today, they announced that this will result in charges, potentially resulting in fines as large as $7 billion."
Microsoft gets one last chance to defend itself.
The only way to make corporations behave is to make the fine firstly remove all profits from the nefarious acts and then add enough on top that the risk/reward ratio is larger than 1 so that they don't do bad things on the chance that they're not caught often enough to matter.
In other words, the fine must really hurt otherwise it's just the cost of doing business (c.f. the paltry 1bn that intel had to spend for years of blatantly illegal market fixing).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I could understand Microsoft being a pain in the browser department when they were building an entire stack on top of I.E. with:
a) Active Desktop / Channels
b) Active-x (i.e.windows binaries as a web format)
c) A specialized Java that ran much faster than standard Java
d) Deep ties with IIS
And then for the later IE6 years, I can understand the advantages of only offering a crippled web browser once they won the browser wars to keep people locked into the Microsoft desktop.
But today's newer web apps are being built browser and OS independent, a lot of them are built on Macs and a lot migrate their functionality over from Linux. IIS specific software isn't popular, and even where it is deep ties with IE isn't. Today's IE is rather full featured and aims at standards compliance.
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
to delete internet explorer , dave.
I admit it's hard to feel sorry for microsoft. Anytime you see a company that's been as consistently evil as someone like MS has been finally get taken down by an even bigger, meaner bully you can't help but feel a little gleeful.
Maybe we should condemn microsoft because they actually are guilty as hell and DESERVE to suffer, and not just because we hate their guts?
We punish their reputation by boycotting them.
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome
Dolphin
Opera
Mercury
Atomic
Dingo
everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos.
You are aware that the economy of the European Union generates a GDP of over €12.629 trillion (US$17.578 trillion in 2011) ...and they were guilty as sin.
Lets see an international law that says a corporation's country of origin is allowed to choose a charity to donate the money to. Taking billions from foreign countries is far too tempting, especially when you're having money problems. This is much like in ancient Rome, where tax collectors were given their pay as part of the taxes they collected, and they were responsible for deciding how much tax to take -- and we wonder why no one trusted tax collectors! This isn't much different. An appropriate law enforcement scheme would see sentences that directly impact the governing bodies of the corporations, while not creating a conflict of interest with fines that are exacted.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
There are a number of profitable businesses that never make a profit. Someone already mentioned movies. Every so often you see people burned by movie contracts that pay a percentage of the profits rather than a percentage of the revenue.
Something like a ban on Microsoft bidding for EU government contracts would do more damage.
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents to put into the public domain. That would hurt more than anything, but unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
*sigh* If only the public would stand up and demand such things, or at the very least vote for people that represent the public's interest. Europe's multiple political parties, which are sabotaging their economies, are proving to be no better than the US two party system, and every bit as corrupt.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The idea that a corporation needs to provide a choice of browsers on their own OS is asinine. It may have been valid back when all of the OS hooks only used IE for anything, but that's no longer the case. Chrome, FF, Opera, etc, all work fine, and setting them up for default operations works.
Apple does the same thing with OSx, and forget iOS, where the only real browser experience is Safari because they actually DO limit the javascript engine access for other apps.
This, really, makes no sense, at all.
No, that's not a valid defense. All that does is argue that Apple is committing the same crimes as Microsoft.
Another way of thinking about it: If I steal $1000, and you steal $2000, does that make me not guilty?
I am officially gone from
Who ARE you? Just, wow.
My guess would be as soon as Apple go out of their way to stop other browsers working on their machines, people will start to notice.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Frankly, if people are too lazy or disinterested to go try another web browser for themselves after the fact, I doubt they're going to know the difference, or care, when they have 5 options presented to them during an installation process they probably didn't go through since they bought a PC with the OS already installed and configured. I definitely don't think it is a $7 billion question. I doubt there is anything close to $7bn worth of equity in web browsers. They're all given away for free, except the less obnoxious version of Opera (which still sucks, but it's a European product and is probably what this whole thing is really about). These are definitely punitive damages and not compensatory damages, and thus are inherently political. It doesn't matter if it is a drop in the bucket of the aggregate GDP of EU countries -- no one said they were planning on funding their governance with this.
And of course, I doubt we'll see any judgements against Apple for only providing Safari any time soon, and the fact that they only provide Safari didn't stop me from getting Firefox on my MBP. The fact that my Thinkpad came with Windows and thus IE, plus Lenovo-installed Chrome didn't stop me from going to downloading Firefox. And *GHASP* I managed to adjust my browser selection on my Linux workstation in my office, too.
Maybe it's just that I'm not 14 anymore like I was when I opened this account, but I just don't really take glee anymore in watching MS get bashed around for what amounts to petty crap. It's just a damned web browser.
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome Dolphin Opera Mercury Atomic Dingo
Besides Opera those are all skins around Safari, they are not new browsers. Opera's a little special because it's not a browser, it's more like a browser previewer where the browser actually runs on Operas servers.
Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
On the other hand, outlook, the email prog that hackers love, stays and no one even mentions it. Even tho there's a bunch of not free email progs out there that have to compete.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents to put into the public domain. That would hurt more than anything, but unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
It's a pipe dream because if the EU did that, the U.S. might turn around and do the same with EU companies in the U.S.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
iPads, iPhones, iPod touches... all bundled with Safari. As an added bonus, all software for those devices must have Apple's approval (which can be revoked) and must be sold through Apple's store (where they take a cut). I like Microsoft products and I like Apple products, I just feel like the legal standards being applied to the two companies don't match up too well.
Sir, don't you realize that this is Slashdot, where my favorite distro of Linux is by far the superior OS, forever and for all time?!?!?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
You could always install other browsers on Windows as well. That wasn't what the lawsuit was about....
That's not the argument.
The argument is that if it is ok for you to steal $2,000, why is it not ok for me to steal $1,000.
There is a big difference there.
You suggested that both our stealing is wrong. The defense would be "You seem ok with the other guy stealing $2,000. That suggests to us that this is a politically motivated action and not based on the merits of your case because if it were, we would expect suit against the more egregious offense where there is none".
That would be a great thing for the rest of us who want to see the abolition of copyrights/patents altogether.
But, as you said, I'm looking forward to seeing rainbow shitting unicorns
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And without that revenue from government contracts how do you expect them to keep innovating?
Catering to three year olds seems to be working for them.
which would leave the world in a much better place.
Either way works for me. Win-Win.
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents
Invalidate their business license. It's as simple as that. I don't know why it isn't done more often. You mess up in a car and your driver's license is in jeapordy with points, suspension or revocation. Hold businesses accountable for their actions via the licensing system as well. QED.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Firefox: www.firefox.com
Opera: www.opera.com
Safari: www.apple.com/safari
WTF? I can find dozens of other browsers with a cursory google search. Why is it up to MS to pre-package a bunch of browsers and let the user choose one that will no doubt already be an out-of-date pile of security holes by the time the PC hits the desk?
Have people become so lazy (or stupid) that they can't even go download a browser by themselves?
Fuck sake people. Me thinks this is just another big government money grab. After all, EU governments have a lot of mouths to feed.
Let's say the EU decided to bankrupt Microsoft... which is what invalidating copyrights would do. The patents could be sold off, but it is doubtful that they would be worth much - they might get $10 million for the whole package.
Why would this bankrupt Microsoft? Because Microsoft has no other asset than copyright on the software. The software by itself is worthless, as would quickly be found by everyone. I do not see that EU could isolate this to EU residents only - it would suddenly become legal to make copies as desired and distribute Microsoft software. That would effectively eliminate all revenue the company receives.
Obviously, Microsoft would petition the US government for relief, which it would not get. However, the threat being made clear the US would have to do something. One option would be to do the same thing to some EU-based company but there are no EU-based companies with anything like the value of Microsoft in copyrights. Maybe revoking all copyrights of all EU companies, thereby bankrupting the entire EU software industry.
OK, so now 95% of the world is left without an operating system that is maintained and without an office suite that is maintained. Could Linux pick up the slack? Doubtful without a lot of man-years of effort, and in the environment we are talking about VC money for a software startup would be non-existent as would any other sort of financing. Apple would be in serious hurt because their rights to the iOS and OSX operating system would be seriously questioned. They might survive a bit longer because they would still be shipping "true blue" Apple products, but without any sort of protection half-assed clones would appear calling into question the value of all of the products. How would anyone know if they were buying an Apple product vs. a cheap clone?
I'd say there would be a lot of people out of work and there would be a big resurgence of desk calculators. And nobody other than hobbists would be putting money into computers and software.
They're already doing it on iOS (and getting away with it). The other browsers on iOS are just skins, using the Safari rendering engine.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Actually it's not even about individuals. It's about European corporations mandating use of IE6 - even now, at the end of 2012, I have customers who demand that we make our web apps for them compatible with IE6 because that's the only thing that their IT approved and their IT does not plan on approving anything else.
It was a bad decision to tie the IE web browser function into the Windows operating system. It was a bad decision to fight the anti-monopoly folks when they came calling. It was a bad decision to drag their feet about offering browser alternatives in Windows. And, now, it has been a bad decision by Microsoft to blow off the EU regulators when they were ordered to include browser alternatives. Microsoft was gifted with their Windows monopoly thanks to being in the right place in the right year with the right software. Now, however, the world has moved on and the Windows monopoly is tottering. Microsoft should have just quietly enjoyed their monopoly while planning for its eventual demise rather than attempting to enjoy it in perpetuity. Now, the entire Microsoft 'empire' built on the Windows monopoly is in jeopardy...and the end will probably come much sooner than anyone thinks. It was stupid back a few years to ignore the EU and it is even more stupid now, given the new market realities that Microsoft faces. Microsoft needs new leadership...they need it really soon...and even then it might be too late.
MS should not have to give users a choice in software.
If MS did not have a virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, it wouldn't matter very much. Since it does, however, its energetic and long-standing attempts to make the average, non-technical user forget that there are other browsers is culpable.
At one point in United States v. Microsoft, one of MS' highly-paid lawyers told the court with a straight face that IE was an organic part of the Windows operating system, and as such could not be separated from Windows or replaced by another browser without serious damage.
Simultaneously, I imagine, his colleagues were burning up the lines to Redmond warning the engineering managers to start work on *making* IE an organic part of the Windows operating system that could not be separated from Windows or replaced by another browser without serious damage.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
For the "sin" of extorting funds if you chose to include a competitors browser.
For the "sin" of forcing companies to pay for MS licenses even if the computer they sold was sold with Linux.
For the "sin" of being MS - which Jerry Lewis spent many years trying to raise money to rid the world of.
I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that
(Humor lesson... it's not the joke, it's how you tell it.)
Free Martian Whores!
I know it's not a REAL defense, I was using a joke to voice my frustrations. :) Although, I could sure use $2000, and if I get to steal it without any legal problems because the law is after you and your $1000, it sure would be tempting!
Correct. I was merely adapting his analogy to more accurately fit how it could be used as a defense instead of the straw man he'd made ;)
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine.
Scaling. Because it doesn't do anything if you fine a company with 50k if said company makes 3 billion a quarter.
I was thinking about iOS apps and that you're not allowed to list anything on the app store that competes against Apples own.
I guess they have two mitigating factors, firstly that its always been locked in, in that you've always bought the device knowing these limitations; rather than Windows where it was essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, there is a competitor in Android that has by some metrics a larger user base than iOS.
It would seem Apples 'arch enemy' is in fact doing a great deal of good for the company...
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Which makes sense, except if you consider what is best for the users. A OS needs a set of basic included software products, and it is not at all better to ask the user for each one which one they prefer.
Are we going to fine Tim Hortons (THE canadian coffee shop) over not giving customers a choice over what type of beans goes in the default coffee? Are we going to fine Mcdonalds for not asking if a customer would possibly not prefer a Burger King burger instead?
This ruling shows an absolute disregard of what is best for the people, and an obvious contempt for their intelligence (give them a basic internet browser, and they can install another if they want to).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I hate bullies. That's why this video always puts a little smile on my face
Microsoft gets body-slammed by the EU!
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine. What for?
Violating the terms of the settlement. And a big enough fine to make it not having been worth the effort to voilate the terms.
If the law can't prevent infractions, then it's toothless.
A Browser choice? Really? In 2012, 2011, 2010
Ah well, it's well past so we should let them off the hook. No! Of course not!
Today these idiots come from MS, tommorow it will be you, or your company, or your family
You mean these "idiots" coming at coportations who repeatedly break the law and making them stop? Of course you and your family should be above the law!
or your bank.
Which one? Both of mine are now owned by the government. Most of the rest are being investigated for large scale price fixing.
So, yeah, these "idiots" are coming at my bank. Good on them. Nail the bastards to the wall for illegal acts costing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Through illegal companies have illegally enriched themselves (i.e. taken my money through illegal means) to the tune of hundreds of billions---vastly larger than all the thefts and burlgaries combined.
Yet you seem to think that people coming after them are "idiots" and somehow your or your family should be above the law.
You wouldn't call the police idiots for pursuing a burglar who robbed you. But because you clearly feel that one day you maybe able to get these ill-gotten gains for yourself you seem to think it's OK.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No. Because Apple does not have a Monopoly or near Monopoly in a market segment. ("iPhones" and "iPads" are not a market segment, "smartphones" and "tablets" are.)
Microsoft wasn't fined for pushing IE, but for leveraging Windows' position as a Monopoly tu push IE.
The rule is not a rule about operating systems that come with a pre-installed browser, it is a rule set in an agreement that Microsoft entered into with the EU as part of the settlement of charges related to Microsoft illegally leveraging an existing monopoly in the personal computer operating system market.
The makers of the operating systems you make have not entered into similar agreements, or even been charged with the same offense.
Its like asking why parole terms that apply to a particular convict don't apply to other citizens who haven't been convicted of (or even charged with) the crime that the convict was convicted of, much less subjected to similar parole terms.
>Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
That's because you have no sense of history and why browsers became free (as in cost).
Microsoft abused its monopoly position to essentially make it impossible for anyone to market a browser that was paid for by the users. They licensed Spyglass Mosaic, promising Spyglass that Microsoft would remit a percentage of revenue to Spyglass. Spyglass thought this was great. The thing is that Microsoft gave IE away, so they didn't have to give Spyglass a plug nickel, much to Spyglass' dismay (don't ever "partner" with Microsoft is the lesson here).
But the motivation was not necessarily to shut down Spyglass. The motivation was to choke off the revenue that Netscape was getting for their browser, which was viewed as a threat to Microsoft's Windows OS itself (because a browser is almost a complete OS in itself missing only a few things to turn it into one). The goal was to reduce the amount of money people were willing to pay for a browser to 0 dollars and wreck the market for browsers. It worked, taking Netscape from a healthy growing company to being a minor subsidiary of AOL, bought for a song and then just not existing at all.
--
BMO
No. First, because "someone else is also breaking the same law" is not a legally valid defense (in some cases, it may be a strategy to avoid or reduce charges you are facing, if the other someone is perceived by the government to be worse than you, and your cooperation actually makes it easier to hold them accountable.)
Second, because there doesn't appear to even be a colorable claim that Apple isn't doing what Microsoft is accused of doing, to wit, violating an agreement with the EU that was entered into as part of the settlement of a past antitrust action. The specific browser choice requirement Microsoft faces isn't a generally applicable rule, its a special restriction that Microsoft agreed to as part of settling charges of illegally leveraging a monopoly in the past.
Who ARE you? Just, wow.
+1
The gp's comment is so stupid that it's either coming from a 3-year-old, or it's a troll.
Or, it's coming from a 3-year-old troll, using Windows8, natch.
cheers,
I think the recent EU action demonstrates why that is not an actual benefit Microsoft receives from defying the rules it agreed to in settling the EU antitrust action.
Breaking a legally-binding agreement that they entered into rather than raising an actual defense against charges that they violated European antitrust law.
Which legally-binding agreement entered into to settle past charges does Apple break with OS X and/or iOS?
essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications.
I never had any problems running Netscape or any other browser on any Windows PC during the old browser wars.
FC Closer
What hurts the people more? Not being able to choose a browser, or not being able to buy Windows at all? As much as we like to think that Linux is a good OS, it's not a drop in replacement for Windows. You can't just tell MS that they can no longer do business at all in your country/continent. That would annoy a fair number of your citizens and cripple many businesses. While I think that giving small fines to Microsoft isn't really that effective, telling them they couldn't sell their product at all would probably hurt the EU more than it would hurt MS. Personally, I think this whole thing is a little stupid. You've always been able to install whatever browser you wanted to on your Windows machine with absolutely no trouble. They shouldn't need to present you with a nice little screen asking which one you want to install.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
which operating system has the largest number of different browsers available for it?
I feel sorry for them because this particular agreement should probably be void nowadays. I mean, IE is no longer dominant browser and MS no longer has anything close to monopoly there. The awareness of other browsers like Firefox and Chrome is very high, so I honestly don't see any problem with them doing it now.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
What hurts the people more? Not being able to choose a browser, or not being able to buy Windows at all? As much as we like to think that Linux is a good OS, it's not a drop in replacement for Windows. You can't just tell MS that they can no longer do business at all in your country/continent. That would annoy a fair number of your citizens and cripple many businesses.
So, you seem to agree with the GP that Microsoft's copyrights should be invalidated in the EU, so everyone who wants can take any copy of Windows and install it on any computer they like. I agree with you, that's indeed a good and useful punishment.
I think this whole thing is a little stupid. You've always been able to install whatever browser you wanted to on your Windows machine with absolutely no trouble. They shouldn't need to present you with a nice little screen asking which one you want to install.
They shouldn't, but it doesn't hurt. It helps those that aren't able, because of lack of training and/or skills, to download an alternative browser by themselves.
Besides, Microsoft agreed previously with the EU that they will have that "nice little screen" in Windows, or else they get bitchslapped. Now they broke that agreement, and logically and consequentially, are going to be bitchslapped. I really don't get what's so confusing for you, in this trivially straightforward matter.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I'm not a huge fan of many of Microsoft's business practices, but the whole browser bundling issue was always pure bullshit.
Windows includes a lot of other bits of software that step on the toes of third-party software companies, too. MS correctly realized that a web browser was becoming an essential, ubiquitous piece of software. It is absurd to suggest they should have distributed a competitor's software in place of their own, and absurd to suggest that they should simply stay out of the market because there was competition. What business do governments have deciding what should or shouldn't be a core feature of an OS?
based on M$'s revenue, I would charge them at least 20 to 30 billion.
while
"As much as we like to think that Linux is a good OS, it's not a drop in replacement for Windows"
Web browsing, E-mail, Word Processing and Media Player, what's not good enough ?
Windows 7 Vs Ubuntu 9.04, Sep 2009
AccountKiller
I just feel like the legal standards being applied to the two companies don't match up too well.
Of course they don't, since MS was punished for monopoly abuse. You can't abuse a monopoly you don't have.
Free Martian Whores!
They have been punished (after full due process, appeals etc blah blah) for being in breach of EC rules, directives etc. They have been fined oodles of money for non-compliance with EC directives before and eventually caved. This browser choice thing was bright and shiny and in full view of Microsoft from Ballmer to their lowliest serf. They failed to comply with the EC ruling. They are going to get hammered. And rightfully so.
It doesn't matter if it's an "honest mistake" which is a bollocks argument, because changing the install image which implemented browser choice would require a high level of approval.
What a pack of whining shills crying "Mercy!" where none is deserved.
Sorry, but it's not the same crime. MS had to agree to this to avoid prosecution for (??abuse of monopoly?? maybe. I forget the exact charge). It did agree. Now it's broken the agreement with the court. So what we're back to is punishment for the crime for which they had originally been found guilty.
E.g., I have a distant relative who was arrested for drunk driving, and let off after promising the court not to drink anymore. He's now in the slammer because he showed up in court drunk on some other business. There's talk of revoking his license, or perhaps just putting a breathealyzed on his car, so he can't start it if he's been drinking. But showing up in court drunk wasn't THAT big an offense. Perhaps, but he violated his promise to the court, and the court noticed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Sorry Judge, you can't send me to jail for that. It'd be unjust! There's hundreds of crooks who've not been caught and punished yet. You can't jail me until you've seen to all those others! It's unfair I say!"
Microsoft needs to take responsibility. They screwed up. They need to take whatever the EC decides is the punishment like the men/women/other that they are and move along. Maybe the shareholders might also decide that there's been too many failures of management and slough some of the higher level dross who make these epic mistakes off the back of the company.
Bureaucrats need their 18 hours of sleep per day.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
7 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts thrown around for fixing the financial crisis you Americans kicked off.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Last time there was a fine for this, together with all the non-compliance penalties etc over the years, the total cost to Microsoft was on the order of $2 billion.
There are more problems with the arrangement on iOS.
First of all, the engine as it is provided to other apps is actually inferior compared to what Mobile Safari itself uses (IIRC, third parties don't get the faster JIT that came in iOS 5). So any third-party browser is automatically inferior in performance.
The other quirk is that Safari always remains the default browser - i.e. the app that opens when you click any link in any other app. If you want to use Chrome, you have to open things in Safari, and then copy/paste the URL into Chrome.
MY question is... where the bloody hell do these fines go?!? Do they get given to the allegedly "harmed" consumers and businesses? Hell no! They get dropped into a giant government slush fund to pay for the next round of "legally required" pay rises for the "elected representatives".
Fines are a shitty way to deal with a problem.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Is Internet Explorer considered a free product they were giving away? ... Can someone explain it to me how it was damaging for them to do that?
Kryst, why do we keep having to explain this to newcomers (or people who have just woken up and missed the events of the last 15 years)? It was damaging because IE (and MS's HTML creation app, FrontPage) did not keep to the HTML standards : they used MS's own extensions. This meant that websites created by FrontPage, which seemed to be the majority at the time, could only be viewed the way the designer intended if you viewed them with IE.
This was deliberate MS policy to create the impression that other browsers were "broken". This was to get people to use IE which in turn meant that you had to use Windows.
IE was not really free. MS themselves argued persistently that it was "part of the OS [Windows]", which is not free. You can download IE freely, but that is like downloading any other Windows patch, and that does not mean that Windows is "free".
I'm sure the $7B will come in handy for supporting the EU member states' addiction to spending and entitlements.
Unfortunately they are addicted to spending it on Windows and Office.
Windows needs IE so people can download the other web browsers you fucking European trash twits..
No it does not. Another browser can be downloaded with FTP protocol. MS could write a relatively small user-friendly app employing FTP to do the download and installation without involving IE. Perhaps that is what this browser choice screen is already?
U.S should move all their troops out of Europe and back home ... If EU does not like windows method maybe they should use Linux or BSD.
I heartily agree with all that
We're talking about the EC here, there are no "elected representatives". The 27 members of the College are appointed by the member states.
Dilbert RSS feed
They're still elected, just not by the public.
Also, note the quotation marks. The more cynical among us argue that even the ones that actually are elected aren't really elected.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Wasn't my point. Still doesn't explain outlook. The one the killed off paid email progs.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com