Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fined €561 Million For Non-compliance With EU Browser Settlement
Seeteufel writes "Microsoft's failure to comply with an antitrust settlement about browser choice has severe consequences. The European Commissioner for Competition Almunia set a fine of €561 million (~$732 million) for the unprecedented break of agreement. Microsoft admitted its mistakes and offered further concessions."
A pretty costly bug it seems. From the EC press release: "This is the first time that the Commission has had to fine a company for non-compliance with a commitments decision. In the calculation of the fine the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, the need to ensure a deterrent effect of the fine and, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that Microsoft has cooperated with the Commission and provided information which helped the Commission to investigate the matter efficiently."
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
If this had been a small company the EU would have had no problem fining them 10% of revenue which is allowed for an act like this. Just because Microsoft has the lawyers to 'cooperate with the Commission' shouldn't allow them off with such a small fine.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords. Apparently laundering money for terrorists and drug lords is only 2.5 (roughly) times as bad as not complying with an EU court settlement.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
There is virtually ZERO chance/probability that this was a Microsoft bug.
It sure is a *fine* story!
I don't think that's a small fine at all! I mean i think it's a pretty big dent into M$'s browser-related earnings.
How can they allow software which doesn't exist to run on they're operating system? You'd probably have been better off attempting a car analogy.
I mean now Microsoft should be fined for trying to literally break the bank with its new UEFI/Secureboot monopolistic idiocy.
But let's go higher this time - i hereby propose 10.000.000.000 $ (ten US billions of US dollars).
And while doing that, why not stop this Secureboot crap from happening while we still can ?
Why a company with known history like that is allowed to continue its sick practices is beyond me.
This was done under EU anti-monopoly legislation. Microsoft was at the time judged to have a monopoly share of the PC OS market. And as such they couldn't use that monopoly to leverage advantage into the web browser market.
Since neither Google nor Apple have monopoly shares in any OS platform, they should not and cannot be required to do this.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
What about OSes that don't even allow other browsers to be installed on them? Are they exempt from this type of ruling?
Yes yes, goddammit yes. The ruling was to attempt to correct *abuse of monopoly*. Bundling browsers (or anything) isn't in itself illegal, but using one monopoly (OS) to leverage another (browser) *is*.
Just because this isn't a problem anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it. Punishments must still happen for past actions.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh cut the amount Samsung is obligated to pay Apple by about $450.5 million, or nearly 43%, to $598.9 million.
And Microsoft is fined $732 million for not complying with a court order / ruling?
You're comparing a civil suit in one country to a criminal fine in another. Why bother comparing, they're completely different things.
I've no problems with them doing this to MS - though I wouldn't call that a small find (maybe a touch exorbitant) I still wish they'd go after Apple.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Why do they get away with it?
In case that's not a rhetorical question, it's because we, in Europe and the US, continue to reelect the people they put on the ballot.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Go after Apple for what? They do not have a monopoly in any market.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
The browsers are not just bundled but Apple doesn't even allow other browser engines like Firefox's Gecko to run on the iDevices. The maximum you can do as a browser maker is to put a different skin on top of the Safari renderer. Chromebooks don't even allow browsers.
That means there won't even be a Netscape equivalent to complain about bundling because alternate browsers are just plain banned. Software freedom and choice is more dead in the post-PC world than it was in the PC world.
This space for rent.
not sure who they will fine next month.
It, by itself is not the bad thing.
The bad thing is when you use your dominance in one area (desktop OSes and Office suites) to dominate other markets to the point of harm to both the competition and to end users.
This can be seen as a requirement to use MSIE in order to use Outlook Web Access. Though this wasn't, to my knowledge, used in the case against Microsoft, it is a strong example of how Microsoft pushed its dominance into other areas to the harm and exclusion of others. This is antitrust.
Imagine if someone like me had an effective monopoly on automobile tires and I used that to expand into the road construction business resulting in roads that were "more compatible" with my tires than those of competitors.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
"Oh, Mr Murderer, you're not currently killing anyone? Well then be on your way, you little scamp!"
what about the windows RT lock down and the win 8 app store how will that go under EU rules?
Yes, you are, and so is every other person who's already posted the same thing as you.
Microsoft were referred to the EU Competition Commission due to a complain by Opera. They were found to hold a monopoly on desktop Operating Systems. They were found to be using this monopoly to illegally extend their monopoly into another market, namely web browsers. The original action (being forced to provide Browser Choice) was intended to address their illegal action. Microsoft subsequently ignored this, for 14 months, all the time claiming that they were in compliance. This fine is a result of their actions in ignoring a previous agreement with the EU.
You can stamp your feet and whine all you like, but that's the law and those are the facts.
Apple are not expected to comply with the same rules before they have not been referred to the EU Competition Commission and thus legally there is no monopoly status, and therefore can not be using that monopoly to extend their market in other areas.
If you believe that Apple are a monopoly and that they are harming consumers through their actions relating to that monopoly, please feel free to complain to the EU Competition Commission.
bundling an "app store" into Windows 8 then designing the OS to refuse certain local API features to products that haven't been sold through Microsoft's own store, no other vendor can or has been given the chance to setup their own store or is able to offer products that can utilise those APIs without restriction, the customer (lol) cannot shop anywhere else, effectively making the OS a 2 tier system, fully featured applications or those that haven't paid MS a fee . a prime case of a monopoly abuse, nice try
I'm looking around and I can't see Win8 having a significant percent of the market (maybe I can't see because it's night time, but anyway...) what monopoly are you talking about?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
not necessary now doesn't mean that it didn't happen, of which they were found guilty. The fact that even after they were found guilty they continued to let it happen and denied it, is why they are now seeking this to be a deterrent.
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
Will it go towards something applaudable like technology for education, or technology for the unprivileged, or will it go to pay off the lawyers, and change the office furniture (including the windows shades ;)?
Keep PIGS afloat for a couple of days longer.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
That seems to be the only thing that would get the attention MS should be providing.
Both parties in the (root of most evil) 2-party system are effectively identical from the standpoint of corporations.
Voting against the 'incumbent' but for the other duopoly party doesn't give corporations any reason to think anything will change, so they don't adjust behavior.
--- Mercutio was right.
How are Microsoft's customers harmed by browser bundling?
Doing shit is not necessarily illegal.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
They don't have a monopoly OR an antitrust settlement to break.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Neither does MS. There has never been one time in the history of Windows where there weren't at least two or three other perfectly viable OS alternatives. I've used MAC OS's, OS Warp, various flavors of Linux, etc. over the years and have never once felt that Windows was my only option. The only thing you REALLY need Windows for is gaming. And even that is changing.
Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
The ruling comes from an another era, back when Microsoft was guilty of abusing it's position.
They no longer have that position to abuse, but they still weren't compliant with a court order.
IE6 lock-in is still causing harm now, over a decade after it was first inflicted on us.
the gravity and duration of the infringement
Given that the choice to use multiple free pieces of software is such a grave situation I'd expect the fine to be 0.
It sort of made sense back in 1998 or so. Can't help thinking it made less sense when the judgement was finally made. By that time, a browser really was an expected part of an OS. Now it's practically impossible to buy a computer without a browser. Even games consoles and ebook readers have them.
Meanwhile, nobody is in the third party browser business (if they ever were). A more relevant demand for today would be to force MS to allow a selection of start pages.
The laws regarding monopolies and anti-competitive behavior are more complex than the simple dictionary definition of "monopoly". Microsoft was convicted of abusing a monopoly position, and now has to deal with the results of that conviction.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly it once was. Furthermore, Apple is doing far more egrarious violations. What about the fact that Apple refused to convert to microUSB with the new iPhone 5. Where is there fine.
At least Microsoft lets me install an alternative browser (crApple, did their darndest to prevent even that)
Well, they would loose sales if they didn't include a browser. And the browser they provide, guide people into their search engine and their advertising. This is worth money.
Also, they ignored a court order. That earned them a big slap. Serves them well, because they didn't need to do that. There were no need for the stalling, but they did it anyway. So the court set an example. The next multinational corporation may pay more attention.
Most Linux dists with Firefox and I suppose Android may have a standard browser to.
Microsoft were abusing their position to ensure other browsers couldn't be bundled as part of the OEM software builds distributed with new PCs. PC makers were literally not permitted to add any other browsers. See this US Dept. of Justice link, section V.C.2 for a summary. This was Microsoft's strategy for winning the browser wars against Netscape Navigator, and was the reason Netscape died out.
Then they integrated their Internet Explorer browser into the operating system so deeply that you can't actually uninstall it. Internet Explorer is present on EVERY copy of Windows released, whether the user wants to actually use it or not.
This is different from Linux distros distributing Firefox as part of their bundle for a number of reasons - chief of which is that Firefox isn't made by the Linux Foundation, it's a Mozilla product. Secondly, it's been a while since I installed Ubuntu, but I'm pretty certain when I did, the installer asked me which browser(s) I wanted (amongst other software) - it's not like Firefox was just given to me, I could have picked Chrome if I'd wanted to use it.
The reason Microsoft are being targeted here is that this is an anti-trust fine. Microsoft are recognized as the leader in the consumer and enterprise desktop/laptop PC OS markets - there are more Windows installs than there are Linux or Mac installs. By bundling their own browser and not giving users the option during installation NOT to install IE (let alone giving them the option to install something else), they could be viewed as using their dominance in the desktop OS market as a tool to gain dominance in the web browser market. Remember that a lot of consumers will also just go with whatever is installed, either through ignorance (they don't know how good other browsers are, and IE just works, right?) or through not feeling confident / tech savvy enough to install a different browser. You have to go download files and run installers and make choices - that sort of thing scares people, which is why the App Store model is so popular - you just click "install" and it goes and does it all for you. Putting the choice of browser in the installation wizard for the OS or in the "first-time user login" wizard when you first start up your brand new PC should even the playing field, giving users an easy way of picking what browser they want to use. Granted, most will continue using IE because that's what they've been used to in the past, or because of the Microsoft branding on it - but that's their choice.
Having the Chrome browser bundled with Android is pretty much the same as Microsoft including IE with Windows and Apple including Safari with MacOS and iOS - yes there are other browsers available, but they don't give you the choice what you want. There is no reason why the European Commissioner for Competition can't go and levy the same sorts of fines against Google and Apple for the same reasons (maybe they haven't received complaints about this practice by these companies?). It's just been Microsoft's turn this time, and the fine they're being hit with is because of their failure to comply with an earlier ruling - they were told previously to give users a choice, and this demand has basically been ignored.
OH THE HUMANITY! THE HORRORS! I HAVE TO CHANGE BROWSER MYSELF?!
You don't have to change it at all if you don't want to. The point is, it's about having the choice. You may have the technical know-how to do this, but a lot of people won't, so Microsoft win the browser wars by default.
He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
IE6 lock-in is still causing harm now, over a decade after it was first inflicted on us.
Surely the majority of the blame for that should go to companies like Netscape for not providing a decent alternative for such a long time. The beginning of the fall of Internet Explorer came with the release of Firefox.
Of course, you could say that Opera was around during that period, but even today when more and more people find alternatives to the bundled browser nobody hardly anybody chooses Opera.
The fine is a deterrent, and a sign that in Europe, the government is more powerful than business interests. Guess all those years of fascism left a mark. Score 1-0 for democracy and rule of law.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Where by "nobody" you mean Google and Mozilla and Opera, right?
Google is in the search business, where Chrome exists to promote that. Mozilla is not a business. Opera is a nobody.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
I'm not saying that the time for the remedy is definitely over. Windows market share for PCs is still dangerously high. But it's on the wane, and if it's not past time for the remedy yet, it soon will be.
There are other shit apple is doing, that have nothing to do with monopoly.
Well then they are just a member of a cartel of companies that bundle a browser with their operating systems. It is still the same to the consumer; when EVERY company does the same thing then all together they are a monopoly.
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
What issue? OSX also uses UEFI. So there's no monopoly there. That the OSS community don't like UEFI does not make it a monopoly issue.
An estimated 70,000 people die every day as a result of being locked into IE6.
Both parties in the (root of most evil) 2-party system are effectively identical from the standpoint of corporations.
Mainly because of how fund-raising works. And now the GOP are all ra-ra about citizens-vs-united, and the campaign financing is even more susceptible to the corruption that turns congress-critters into corporate whipping boys.
There is a solution to the problem.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Surely the majority of the blame for that should go to companies like Netscape for not providing a decent alternative for such a long time.
lol!
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Personally I think they should go after Microsoft for denying android the choice of IE.
... they probably made more than that by not compling and to think what sort of fines a file sharer has been getting.
What would be the scaled up or scaled down amount for one on the other?
I think you meant pro-monopoly, as the UEFI BIOS issue is clearly anti-competitive.
So by "business" you mean "source of money" as opposed to "useful activity"?
That's a pretty narrow definition.
Fuck the law. They don't write this stuff for your benifit you know. I hope Microsoft never sends a red cent. As someone else has mentioned already, Internet Explorer is a minority browser. More people use Safari than Internet Explorer. Being forced by the government to provide alternatives to a failing product that you're desperately trying to improve is like having salt rubbed in the wound.
Here's a song for you. Remember it and sing it loud when the bureaucrats zero in on you and demand payment for breaking a bullshit law.
Think about something like iOS; there's no officially supported way to install arbitrary software (and doing so in practice requires jailbreaking). It is, however, possible to write an alternative browser for iOS; IIRC Apple allows them into the store at the moment, but they used not to, so you'd have a situation where the software existed but wasn't allowed to run.
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
They tested whether they could get away with it and arranged some (fairly transparent) level of deniability. It is really simple: This feature was on the "must work" list for all releases. Such items cannot simply be overlooked unless you are really, really, really incompetent. Not even MS manages to reach this level and certainly not for that long.
Well, now they know that they cannot get away with more of this immoral and economically damaging (to all but them) business practice. I also think the EU put the fine on the low end, even given their "cooperation".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
I don't think that it was that bad, and it was still better than anything else available at the time. As much as I hated the concept of Active-X, the technology did fill a need and was used quite a lot - hence the lock-in with company's Intranets, etc.
It was a huge pain in the arse when it was disabled though, as almost every page load caused a prompt to appear to warn that Active-X was off.
I'm looking around and I can't see Win8 having a significant percent of the market (maybe I can't see because it's night time, but anyway...) what monopoly are you talking about?
The one that will exist once it becomes difficult to buy a PC with Windows 7, more and more new software/upgraded requires Windows 8 and the legions of Windows 7 and XP users sigh, give up and upgrade to Windows 8.
The one that means that so many people are putting up with the horrible ribbon interface in Office because they need to be able to exchange files reliably with other Office users.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Essentially, yes. I believe that's basically what will be considered for antitrust purposes.
"This is different from Linux distros distributing Firefox as part of their bundle for a number of reasons - chief of which is that Firefox isn't made by the Linux Foundation, it's a Mozilla product. "
Moreover, even if products made by the Linux Foundation and Mozilla were made by the same group, they still wouldn't be violating anti-monopoly statutes in Europe or the U.S. by bundling simply because the products are not "products" in an economic sense (though they certainly have an economic impact). They are not sold by these groups but given away, without any contingent requirement to purchase any other product. I think that would place their activities outside the scope of any anti-monopoly statutes. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a lawyer.
You are talking on hypotheticals. Let it happen first, punish after. Until then, I guarantee you most of the populace will use iPad/Android tablets to reliably exchange info on FaceBook.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Just how is it a pain to use other browsers or search engines on Windows 7?
Come to think of it that would be an explanation why Win8 is so bad: It is intentional, as the EU would blow-up the MS App store if Win8 ever reached large market penetration.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Tablets.
That seems like a failure in antitrust law, if true, in that a monopoly preventing non-commercial competition is just as bad as a monopoly preventing commercial competition, from my point of view.
Ah, well.
And what browser was better at the time of IE6's release?
Way to be completely uninformed. UEFI was designed by a group of companies, not Microsoft, and had it roots from an Intel technology.
Just because Microsoft (and Apple) use it does not make it an anti-monopoly anything. Linux (or any software developer) can use it, they just choose not to in most cases.
Hardly. They did not even get 50% of the market in 2012 Q4.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/technology/mobile/android-tablet-market-share/index.html
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Actually, it's more like a sign and a barrier in the park saying "keep off the grass." If there is no longer any grass, one should reconsider whether the sign and barrier are necessary.
They made 5.11$ Billion in 2012.
Without looking deeper, the EU just took 1/6th of the money off them for a browser infraction. Whatever you or others think, I can't say I think thats fair. Not today. Not when nobody could claim that they are denied a choice in the market on systems or browsers.
Its basically legalised theft, from employees, and from shareholders, into the EU, which can;t account or pass its own audits. I'd not celebrate this so quickly is my view.
We`re all equal
I'm not sure why you're incapable of or unwilling to grasp this, but the fine in question has nothing to do (at least directly) with Microsoft breaking any laws; it is specifically due to them signing an agreement with the EU to include the Browser Choice software will all new installs of Windows sold in Europe and then *not doing it* while claiming that they were.
This is essentially a fine for breach of contract and nothing to do with whatever irrational government-hating fantasy you've concocted in your mind.
I'd take the opposite approach: If this were either Apple or a non-US company, the EU would not have even bothered.
This 'the EU hates America' argument is really getting tiresome.
It's just not true.
Google (or bing, if you're a Microsoft fan) 'e.on and gaz de france' and you will see that the EU does not only go after American companies but European ones as well.
Microsoft made a deal with the EU.
They didn't stick to the deal.
There where fined. And the fine is only 10% of what it could have been according to law. So the EU went easy on Microsoft.
I guess they keep fining MS so they won't have to prosecute any other trusts.
Luckily there is no monopolistic dominance in other sectors like banking or finance.
... reading the posts here is that Microsoft went out of their way to make sure IE in any form was integral to the operation of Windows.
So MS _deliberately_ made sure that other browser run worse than IE on a Windows system.
Then, after the original court order, they couldn't really backtrack to what they insisted that 'IE cannot be removed' and offer a choice of browsers to use.
I'm pretty sure that if you or I came to an agreement with a court based on a crime we'd committed and then "accidentally overlooked" adhering to that agreement, we'd be nailed for it, so I don't see why Microsoft should get off just because they're a corporation rather than a person (which is still the case outside the US as far as I'm aware).
The fine is not for the crime, it's for breaching the agreement.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
There is a time limit on how long Microsoft has to show the browser ballot the EU citizens.
This time limit was extended when Microsoft was first found to not having been in compliance with the deal.
In keeping with the good international banking traditions, the top management of MS will now all get fat bonuses.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Punitive damage for non-compliance.
This is the first time they've fined a company,
No; there have been many previous anti-competition fines and a number that were for much larger sums. This is the first time that they have fined a company
This should be the worst possible case. The available fine is up to 7Billion Euros and they haven't even fined them 10% of that.
but I assume you know that are are just trolling based on your user name.
If you stole a car, you might expect 10% of the sentence first time round. If you stole another one whilst still on parole, trust me the judge would lock you away and throw away the key. I assume from the fact that you can't see that that you, and the mods who modded me "troll" are being paid to ignore the obvious facts in front of you. This is yet another example of how the goverments bow down to the big corporations.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
You mean this society where burglers and car theieves steal other people's gear for the 500th fucking time and get yet another slap on the wrists?
So, no, I don't accept your thrust. I think MS should have got the fine, but this isn't a fine. This kind of money is legalised theft. Its taking wholly undue amounts for what is today a minor issue, no longer a monopoly, and some of you just see it as 'sticking it to the man'. Its not. All it does is hurt the market, the end users, the shareholders, and the employee. Even in a court, they seek to balance justice with effect.
We`re all equal
And I'm not saying don't hit MS hard. But this is 732 Million dollars for a browser infraction. At a time where the reality is the citizens of Europe do not have a broswer monopoly problem. Its fucking lunacy.
Not really. Microsoft was found guilty a while ago, a fine was calculated, and the fine was reduced because Microsoft agreed to do certain things. They didn't, so they have to pay the additional fine.
It doesn't matter that the actual problem has gone away. There are many people in jail for murder who haven't killed anyone for many years.
Breaching a contract is breaking the law. Anyway, a judge's order is not a contract.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Because they needed to pick one single issue and carry it through to completion in a way that leaves no doubt in Ballmer's mind what what will happen when the next issue is raised. It never really mattered which issue, just that the facts be black and white.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Microsoft was convicted and lost the appeal. If you were on parole and violated it they would nail you even if it was an accident!
It isn't fair when a human on parole forgets some legal detail and is nailed. That's 1 person who is not a lawyer trying to continue living their life. Microsoft is a large number of people with their own law firms who are paid to deal with such things. ZERO EXCUSES for almost any human (except the politically connected) and they can have reasonable excuses; Microsoft doesn't.
Just because they are a corporation (that is, a person in the USA) doesn't mean they should get special treatment.
The fact the EU can even fine them a decent amount shows they can't just bribe their way out of the legal system; like in the USA... Weak punishments just become part of doing business, nothing changes - the whole purpose is to force compliance!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What if I want to run Firefox, IE and Opera on my Google OS powered Chromebook. Should Google be forced to allow this or be fined?
You can run all of those things on your Google OS powered Chromebook. You can wipe it and install another OS that lets you do that, or you can install a real Linux without even wiping it, and run the other browsers under that, even IE via Wine (or did I hear IE is coming to Linux, too? Did I hallucinate that? Aieeeee!) So no, Google should not be forced to allow what they allow without force. That would be unnecessary.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you don't care what anyone else thinks, why do you expect anyone else to care what you think? You're clearly existing in a state in which you cannot learn from anything, so why would you have a valid opinion?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is no reason why the European Commissioner for Competition can't go and levy the same sorts of fines against Google and Apple for the same reasons.
Except Apple doesn't have anything like the sort of near-monopoly on "personal computing" that Microsoft had back in the 1990s when the original infringement occurred. To argue otherwise you have to start making dubious narrow definitions like "high-end smartphones and tablets" - and then you're dealing with new market segments that Apple created themselves, and which are showing every sign of opening up as the competition gets its act together.
Plus, I haven't noticed Google introducing lots of features in its search and maps services that only work on Chrome - or trying to restrict Android to Google services/software only (there are a ton of alternatives for everything in the Play store).
Finally, if the original case were re-considered today, it might not fly - it is now expected that an OS will come with web browsers/HTML components and a shedload of other stuff as standard. Back then, web browsers were a new-ish application with companies like Opera and Netscape seeking to make money from them (ISTR Opera cost money, whereas Netscape was a loss-leader to sell other services),
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Everyone else does that, and Apple's current practice
It's really, really, REALLY simple.
They did it in the past. As another poster pointed out, the punishment has to happen after the crime. The lawsuit went on for ages and was eventually settled. Then MS broke the terms for 2 years, then that had to get processed. These things take a very long time.
Do you propose to let MS off the hook because they managed to spin the first lawsuit out for so long?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Untrue; there are so many holes in IE6, it turns out to have more room than most studio apartments.
No, it isn't. You're only allowed to wrap safari in your own bling.
You do not need 50% market share to be a monopoly or weild monopoly power. And while their market share is sliding, they were at one time at 89%+.
Eager to put me in the teabagger box are ya? Did I specifically say that I hate the government, especially one with no jurisdiction over me personally? I'm just reacting to the bullshit posted above me. The idea of arbritrary law being placed above all else is infuriating. That's essentially saying "whatever they say goes, now pay up."
That said, I didn't recognize this was a response to a court order that they had agreed to. Then it becomes a contractural obligation. In that case, agreeing to it might have appeared to be the most expediant way to move forward, though in all honesty I don't care either way. Maybe this is irrational, but I'd rather see MS fight the EU on this and not give an inch (more than they already have), even it it means having to vacate the entirety of Europe and leave you guys with Linux, Unix, and Apple products.
The law be damned. I'd rather see Microsoft leave Europe than to cow-tow to these basterds.
Also, the comparison is incomplete. Here's the rest of the story: This is like convicting a murderer and then proceeding with the death penalty even though he already had blown half of his brains out resulting in mental retardation.
I am by far not a Microsoft fan boy. I am probably closer to a linux fan boy (especially now that I can play FTL on my linux machine). Unless the EU is giving all this money to the people of Europe, the people of Europe should be pissed. There is no this doesn't translate into higher costs or lower product quality for users. Almost everybody knows how to get their own web browser, or their hacker grandson has done it for them. This idea that having the default web browser bestows some special power to monopolize the internet is retarded.
IE6 was so broken that even Microsoft could not make a newer browser 100% compatible with it. IE6 lock-in worked so great it prevented a lot of companies from upgrading to a newer version of Windows that no longer has IE6.
And yet, Windows 8 still has IE (most likely integrated just as deeply as it was in XP). If Microsoft really does not make a penny on the browser, then why didn't it just comply with the court ruling and provide the choice screen (or even better, release Win8 without IE and let the user install whatever browser they want via the choice screen).
Yes, it is too much work to remove IE from an old OS such as XP, but Win8 was not even complete at the time EU first told MS to remove IE and/or offer choice.
So I'm a shill? Do you really believe that Microsoft would pay any to talk up such an old browser like IE6? Even they ran a campaign to stop people from using that browser.
It is also rather unlikely that any shill would talk about a product being a pain in the arse. It is far more likely that you have just fallen back on what has become an Internet meme that if someone isn't completely filled with hated for Microsoft then they are a shill. It is a comforting thought for people who don't want to put any thought into their arguments.
How were they supposed to provide a decent alternative when they were being frozen out of the market by Microsoft's anticompetitive practices, like forcing PC OEMs to promote IE?
You obviously don't remember how bad Netscape Navigator got towards the end. It became a huge, bloated and buggy mess. It was so bad that they open source it and virtually rewrite it.
I believe that a web browser is a core technology that any OS should provide. It appears all the other OS makers agree. I remember way back when I used an Amiga that there some shareware authors complained that an update to AmigaDOS included functionality the same as their programs. Sometimes that is just what happens when an operating system expands.
I don't know where you live, but in civilized world breaking a court order is never a minor issue. It has zero to do with whether they are a monopolist or whatever. They agreed to a court ordered action, while having an option not to agree (!) (it was similar a bit to a plea deal), then broke that agreement. Now they got fined, and I think the reason is perfectly good. MS as a corporation can't blatantly defy the courts, it's as simple as that. The kind of money they paid as the fine is not legalized theft, it's the minimum needed for them to pay any attention. If it was around a million dollars, it'd be cheaper for them to do nothing and not obey the order. As far as I'm concerned, the court shouldn't have given them a fine -- as a judge, I'd have barred them from the market for 6 months. That'd get the message clearly across that you don't fuck with court orders.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Chrome is a part of Google's business model. No, they don't charge you for it- but it's a gateway into their other services. Chrome is important to Google, and anyone abusing a monopoly to keep Chrome down would have harmed them.
Firefox is Mozilla's flagship product. Without it, they would have nothing. No, they don't charge you for it- but they do make money from you using it. Google (again!) for example pay them to have their search engine as the homepage and default on the search bar. If anyone abused a monopoly to keep usage of Firefox down, it would have killed of their business model and perhaps their whole organisation.
Standard Oil and AT&T were broken up with LESS market share than Microsoft at its peak. Medium size companies with key patents can find themselves on the wrong side of being a "monopoly" with only a few hundred million in sales... I work for a company like that.. But we were a "monopoly" to our customer/market even though we were just a fraction of a larger market.
The measure is "misusing contractual power" not raw size.
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
IE6 was very very nice and Netscape was bloated and slow by comparison. I don't know what you mean by "technological point of view" - sounds like weasel words - but it was more stable than Netscape and fixed the box model bug. Then Netscape 7(?) came out and it sucked, and a lot of people I know jumped ship. A lot of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" was actually very nice - anyone remember the Microsoft JVM? Much faster than Sun's. And don't forget that Internet Explorer introduced XMLHttpRequest, which is legitimately a different and more useful way of thinking about web programming. All of the current "new things" in web tech (like WebGL) couldn't hope to be as influential.
IE6 was a great browser while there was competition. The problems with it were not technical - once they had successfully and deliberately killed off competition, they didn't touch it for years.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Which is the criminal case? It wasn't the USvMSFT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
For fuck's sake.
USvMSFT isn't anything to do with this, EU v MS / Apple v Samsung are the actors in the great grandparent post.
89% in a market they created.... And they have dropped faster than you could get to court.
Microsoft is STILL well over 90% on desktop sales. After 2 decades and antitrust suits on multiple continents.
Try being on probation sometime. It's common to be on probation 3-5 years with lots of conditions like community service, education, coinciding and such. Get to the last day of probation and not have done the additional things... The judge will send you right back to jail the day you should be getting unhooked. I have two jailbird brothers-in-law that just can't seem to understand that.
Microsoft is a giant company with expensive lawyers, they KNOW why they are doing. The problem is that you can't throw the LAWYERS and EXECUTIVES to the dogs.
It's more like if you were Pepsi and bought chips to go with pop. But you made eating your chips with Coke get people slightly sick, but it didn't happen with Pepsi so people were encouraged to buy All Pepsi at the grocery.
That's the software world Microsoft created. And made us all sit in shit for 20 years.
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
I don't think that it was that bad, and it was still better than anything else available at the time. As much as I hated the concept of Active-X, the technology did fill a need and was used quite a lot - hence the lock-in with company's Intranets, etc.
It was a huge pain in the arse when it was disabled though, as almost every page load caused a prompt to appear to warn that Active-X was off.
That's more web developers' fault for making pages that rely on Microsoft proprietary stuff instead of writing standard html.
I bet there is a lot of lazy coding using the quirks of the browser going on, but in those days HTML didn't offer anywhere near the experience that we have today. There was no AJAX available to make interactive web page (except as an Active-X object in Internet Explorer). There was only basic support of CSS (some versions of Netscape Communicator would crash with simple CSS).
If you were writing pages for internal company use and wanted a complicated Intranet then you often had no choice but to use Active-X.
So what? Did you expect them to develop a competition product for their own browser because nobody else had done so?
Way to incredibly lazily put out strawman. It's not that UEFI exists, it's what MS does with it that matters. I didn't think I'd have to clarify that but are you being pedantic or a troll? It is easily antitrust material.
To be honest, that was a bit of a petty response on my part.
What I think I was getting at is that the browser market is somewhat different today than back then.
Netscape had a business model that involved giving away a browser to create a market for its server software. Later it made money through people not knowing that they don't have to default to Netscape.com.
This is similar to Google's Chrome business model, except that Google itself has dominance in a related market. This makes Microsoft's dominance a lot less relevant. Mozilla is also different. While it does benefit greatly from Google's cash injection, and other sponsors to a lesser extent, it would continue to exist through private support and enthusiasts who like the product enough to not need to be paid. This requirement on Microsoft to offer alternatives isn't protecting anyone that really needs protection.
The other important difference is how fundamental a browser is to an OS these days. The argument Microsoft made back in the day may well have been untrue, but now it really makes no sense to unbundle the browser. Including it affects the browser market in the same way that including notepad and wordpad affect the third party text editor market, and calc.exe affects the third party calculator app market. It does but that's the nature of business.
If you are going to be making crazy zealot ramblings, then yes, you have to clarify what crazy rambling you are talking about because the rest of us don't speak crazy.
I suppose you also blame all the thefts and robberies on the banks because they keep their money safe in a vault too. I mean those evil bankers! If they would just leave the vaults unlocked, then people wouldn't have to steal anymore! Am I right?
If I wanted to make crazy zealot ramblings, I'd start making up my facts. If you want to call me crazy, it'd help you to start acknowledging something other than implying I am crazy.
I suppose your strawman about theft is supposed to be relevant? You respond to a strawman with a strawman? Don't think for even a second that bank theft is even close to related to the issue with UEFI. That just shows how hilarious it is you accuse me of crazy zealot ramblings while you are not even capable of logical thought.
Well you are. What in the world does Microsoft taking advantage of the enhanced security features of UEFI have to do with them being a monopoly? UEFI is out there for anyone to use, and its API is available for anyone, or any project to implement. Most users expect their OS to implement security, and taking advantage of the enhanced security is exactly what people want from them. Sure, if you want to run some odd ball linux distribution that refuses to implement it, then yes, you have to take the extra step of disabling it *IF* you bought a windows machine. You could buy a machine with your favorite linux distro on it instead if you want. You could also build your own machine, but gasp, you might have to set a few BIOS/UEFI settings, oh no!
And please stop using the term strawman until you learn what it actually means and can apply it correctly. Using it as a basis for your argument incorrectly just makes you look foolish to those who know what it is.
taking advantage of security features my ass. When you make it more than a basic step to install a second operating system, and lock out other operating systems by default? that's not taking advantage of security, it's setting up an antitrust suit. That's not "oddball linux distribution".
"we're happy to have microsoft hold our security keys. we trust them"
- said people employed by microsoft and nobody else in the world either.
Or should I remind you of Linus's statements? The fact that redhat had to kowtow to MS is not acceptable - and it does run afoul of licensing requirements to boot. You can build your own machine but guess what happens if you install windows on it? I do happen to build my own machines in my spare time, even.
you are a perpetual strawman/apologist with regards to UEFI. go waste someone else's time.
Ah, it is unfortunate Netscape "Mariner" was cancelled.