So the case is about the struggle for reparations and the unconditional surrender.
Opera isn't going to make a single dime for this. They didn't sue Microsoft. They merely reported to the EC that Microsoft was breaking the law. Your red herring doesn't change the fact that MS broke the law.
In fact Opera was just upset about Open XML in Norway and the fact that Microsoft attacked open standards policies in the EU, the W3C and Norway. So they made a simple complaint that found the heel of Achileus. And the Commission says thanks, let's go for it.
The point is, Apple, KDE, Windows....they all integrate browsers.
So what? They didn't break the law, to my knowledge. Microsoft did.
Frankly, Microsoft own it's own ecosystem more than EU/US so if consumers are worried about have IE as a default, there are other operating systems. No one forces consumers to buy Windows.
This is nothing but a red herring. It does not change the fact that Microsoft broke the law.
And furthermore, no, I can't just use a different operating system because I'm constantly being sent files in formats which require Windows software. Even my old bank required IE. It still does, actually.
That you can theoretically install a different OS doesn't change the fact that Microsoft broke the law. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?
Most certainly. Opera never made more money off their desktop browser than now. A year ago or so their desktop revenues were increasing by 100% quarterly.
On mobile phones, they are mostly making money by creating custom versions for various customers. The actual license price for each shipped browser is less than half a dollar or something.
I think Opera realizes that selling browsers to end-users isn't going to work. Which is why even Opera Mobile 9.5 is free of charge.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Are you just looking for something to smear Opera with?
And when Netscape did the exact same thing, that was... sunshine and roses?
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. This is a discussion about Microsoft's violation of the law.
This is when you tell me that Microsoft is a "convicted monopolist", and so anything they do is evil and wrong, while anything any of their competitors does is the best thing ever.
No, this is just a red herring and straw man you cooked up because you cannot refute the fact that Microsoft broke the law, and breaking the law has consequences. I clearly explained to you that this was not about "anything they do is evil". I explained that this was about MS breaking the law.
First of all, it has. Secondly, Microsoft's violations of the law reach beyond OEM bullying. And third, breaking the law has consequences. The market suffers the consequences of Microsoft's violations today, so why shouldn't Microsoft suffer the consequences of its own illegal actions?
*Is* there one that has the same DLL interface as MSHTML.DLL that could serve as a drop-in replacement? I think you're full of shit. Link me to a drop-in replacement, if such a thing exists for OEMs to bundle.
I never claimed there was a drop-in replacement. That is not relevant to the fact that Microsoft has broken the law. Microsoft was taken to task for this in the US as well (you never replied to my comment about "anti-Americanism" for some strange reason), so if they chose to push their luck and integrate it even further, they only have themselves to blame. A crime is a crime.
I bought a licence of Opera s60v3 less than a year ago. Though most versions are free, paid ones still exist.
This is not the desktop market, which is where Microsoft has been undermining competition. The mobile market is completely different, and Opera mainly makes money through deals with operators and OEMs. They are probably just charging end-users because there's a lot more money in distribution deals, and they don't want to undermine their business deals by offering for free what businesses would pay for.
The difference between Opera s60 and mini is that you get a better browsing engine, faster, more responsive and not java based, but really crashier, so much more crash prone.
Opera Mini is definitely much faster than the old standalone Opera for S60.
Opera have always been suffering under the delusion that customers would be lining up to buy their desktop product if only Microsoft wasn't "strangling the market".
Are you retarded? Opera for the desktop has been free of charge for several years.
Since day 1 everyone has been saying that Opera are on crack. Web browsers are expected to be free.
You must be retarded. Nowhere did Opera say that one needs to charge for browsers. That is not what this is about at all. This is about Microsoft breaking the law by undermining competition.
Every time Opera talks to the press I get the feeling that they would like nothing better than to force Microsoft and Mozilla to charge $99 so they can go back to doing the same.
They don't. You are just saying this because you are completely ignorant of the facts.
What happens when Firefox gets to 50% or more of the browser market?
When? Maybe it will happen now that the EU will force Microsoft to stop breaking the law.
Are Opera going to sue them as well for predative price fixing with Microsoft and Apple?
Opera hasn't sued anyone, you idiot. And Mozilla and Apple are not monopolists.
Hell, why not sue GNU for enabling the techinical and legal foundations for creating and distributing free/zero-cost software?
Are you retarded or just trolling? Opera for PCs has been free for several years. And by the way, their quarterly revenues from the desktop version have increased by 50-100% each quarter the last couple of years.
Screw Opera and their retarded, litigation-based business model.
You are clearly extremely ignorant. This is not a lawsuit. Opera asked the EC to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and the EC has determined that Opera has a point. However, Opera will not make a dime from this. Microsoft will not be forced to pay out to Opera or anything like that.
I see them as one small step on the food chain above SCO.
Then I guess you do the same with Google and Microsoft? You see, both of them have logged antitrust complaints in the US and the EU, even against each other. But hey, I guess it's OK if Microsoft does it, eh?
Do you really think its reasonable to get the average user to use FTP to find and download a web browser?
They won't have to. The OEM will preinstall the browser of their choice for the user.
Microsoft did themselves good by making windows a more "web based" experience in 98 and ME, then it looks more like it was poor judgement on their part rather than trying to push their products on their customers.
No, they actively abused their monopoly to destroy competition in the market.
Honestly I think this is an atempt at opera to breathe life into the browser that costs money in a market where everyone else gives it away.
Seriously, are you this ignorant? Opera for PCs has been free of charge for several years!
some web sites require the use of IE because of certain features
Exactly! And this is a result of Microsoft's conscious strategy to lock everything into MS-only technologies.
Microsofts market shre keeps itself where it is because of compatability.
No. Because of lack of competition. Please stop making silly statements, and instead educate yourself on Microsoft's history and behavior.
Please name another ubiquitously-installed system for intelligently processing user input and then delivering them a file, using a graphic interface.
You mean like one of the many package managers for Linux?
And that I would have to install a custom program to get that functionality?
No, the OEM could install it. Or the OEM could install the browser of their choice.
The average user is not going to figure out how to download firefox with ftp.exe. Your comment is inane.
It is your comment which is inane since you are missing the point. And OEMs will preinstall a browser anyway (and Microsoft won't force them to make that browser IE anymore).
When the government breaks up a monopoly, it is considering that monopoly as state property, something that can be seized upon and controlled however the government sees fit.
So when the government throws you in jail for 5 years for robbery, it is considering you as state property for the rest of your life?
First of all, it is not a lawsuit. It's a request for the EC to look into monopoly abuse by Microsoft. And the EC agreed with Opera that Microsoft seems to have broken the law.
Opera is a very successful browser. It is currently the leading mobile browser, and the mobile browser market is far from crowded. Skyfire, Netfront, Obigo, TeaShark, ThunderHawk, Novarra, Picsel, etc. Just because you are ignorant of what the mobile browser market looks like doesn't mean that Opera somehow got where they are today by pure luck and chance. Opera started working on this before most other companies even realized that a full browser might actually be a good idea.
You are assuming that Minimo would have killed Opera, but the fact is that Mozilla completely failed to make their case to OEMs and operators. They gave up on that, and Fennec will mostly be aimed at end-users, while Opera both has direct end-user downloads and massive contracts with OEMs and operators. Just because Mozilla does well in one market doesn't mean that they will in another.
Your entire comment is based on misconceptions and finger-pointing without a single connection with reality.
Microsoft's customers don't want any "interface". They want to click on a link that says "Internet". Microsoft wants to give its customers what they want.
Microsoft has illegally abused its monopoly power, and is therefore not in a position to give customers that. However, OEMs will certainly preinstall their browser of choice, which means that just about everyone will have a preinstalled browser without Microsoft needing to force it on them.
Next thing you know, some company goes, "zomg! Microsoft is so evil, they're not including MY package manager! I'm going to sue! Waaaaah!"
If it can be demonstrated that Microsoft has broken the law, certainly. However, I doubt that you would be able to make a case for that. A browser is unique in that it isn't just part of the OS. It also interfaces with the web, which isn't just tied to one specific OS. Or shouldn't be. Microsoft tried to tie the web exclusively to Windows. This is illegal. They were convicted.
You are basically saying that antitrust laws shouldn't exist, which is quite amazing.
They do. This is extensively documented in the US antitrust case against Microsoft. Microsoft was, because of their monopoly, in a position to threaten OEMs to keep bundling IE even though they wanted to bundle other browsers. Just because you are ignorant of the facts doesn't make the truth a lie.
They don't have to uninstall anything. It's the OEM which will decide which browser is bundled. The end-user gains a better browser because now there will be actual competition in the browser market, and competition benefits everyone because it leads to better products.
"Uhh, durr, I want to uninstall explorer.exe kernel32.dll! Why can't I? MONOPOLY!!!!"
Microsoft is not a monopoly because you can't uninstall those. It's a monopoly because it has a monopoly position in the market. Get a clue, please.
We debate how Microsoft should design and sell their OS because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and therefore has certain limitations over other companies. You are clearly extremely uneducated and ignorant on the matter. I suggest you look up antitrust law.
Preventing competition? How? By having a web-browser pre-installed on a computer?
Not in itself, no. They are breaking antitrust laws by using their monopoly position in one market to unlawfully gain dominance in another by preventing competition. They have done so in many different ways, such as threatening OEMs who wanted to bundle other browsers, willfully violating standards and actively working to use their dominant position to lock the market to proprietary technologies, and so on. Did you read the EC statement?
Not long ago a file manager was a pretty exotic piece of software. No-one says explorer is abusing a monopoly yet better alternatives exist. Why arent people suing MS for this?
This is not a lawsuit. And if you believe that Microsoft has illegally abused its monopoly power by undermining the file manager market, go ahead and log a complaint.
Yeah, I do, and look how that helped everyone.
That was because of poor execution. But that's not the point. The point is that there is already percedent. Do you even remember the exact same case in the US where Microsoft was convicted of destroying competition in the browser market?
If i want a better browser I research the alternatives and get one. The fact Joe six-pack doesnt know there are alternatives is because he/she has no need to get one! My mum can do 100% of her surfing in IE. She doesnt need an alternative. I dont see you providing a single argument justifying your stance on this. Just meaningless 'microsoft is evil and must be punished' stuff usual typical of slahdot.
Microsoft must be punished because they broke the law. Just because you are ignorant of antitrust laws doesn't mean that the complaint is baseless.
The fact that you personally can download some browser is not relevant to the nature of the complaint. Microsoft still locked the web to their technologies, forcing webmasters to write IE-only code. Since then, browsers like Opera and Firefox have been forced to spend huge amounts of time trying to be IE-compatible. It's a huge waste of resources.
Microsoft broke the law. Deal with it, Microsoft shill.
Not sure what you are saying. If you are saying "let the market sort itself out; if open standards are great, they will win". That does not negate the fact that Microsoft broke the law, though. And it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has continue to break the law, destroying the market.
If someone coincided the term 'browser market' and made shares such a big deal, let's also create an RSS reader market and sue MS that it's monopolizing the RSS reader market with IE.
I don't understand your market share comment. There is a browser market, in case you didn't notice. It's not something you pull out of thin air. It's there. And browsers are a bit more central to people's online experience than feed readers. But by all means, if you can demonstrate that Microsoft has broken the law there as it has in the browser market, feel free.
I chuckle here when I read that OEM's inclination towards pushing in other browsers with Windows was the fact IE is bundled. Funny. They can smack a tri-color pony from TrU on your shipped background and the only reason they haven't done it is because they've not been paid for.
Actually, OEMs have always wanted to bundle other browsers, but Microsoft has forced them not to by using threats. By illegally abusing their market power, as they have been convicted of in the US.
So what we have is a case whereby if a company becomes the dominant player in OS's specifically, they are expected to strip down their offerings of any bonus/extra software just in case it's seen as squashing the competition.
No, they are only expected to do so if they break the law. Which Microsoft did.
In a parallel universe, where Apple has 95% of the desktop, could you imagine Steve Jobs saying "Yeah no problem, we'll take out iTunes/Safari".
Do you think Microsoft is saying "no problem" today? Of course not. But they broke the law, and that has consequences. If Apple breaks the law, they too will be punished.
Oh, and who is leading this complaint again? Opera you say? What do they make again?
Opera isn't "leading" anything. Opera asked the EC to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices in the browser market. Microsoft's violations of the law don't become more or less real depending on who filed the complaint, dear child.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Microsoft killed the market.
Opera isn't going to make a single dime for this. They didn't sue Microsoft. They merely reported to the EC that Microsoft was breaking the law. Your red herring doesn't change the fact that MS broke the law.
More red herrings.
So what? They didn't break the law, to my knowledge. Microsoft did.
This is nothing but a red herring. It does not change the fact that Microsoft broke the law.
And furthermore, no, I can't just use a different operating system because I'm constantly being sent files in formats which require Windows software. Even my old bank required IE. It still does, actually.
That you can theoretically install a different OS doesn't change the fact that Microsoft broke the law. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?
On mobile phones, they are mostly making money by creating custom versions for various customers. The actual license price for each shipped browser is less than half a dollar or something.
I think Opera realizes that selling browsers to end-users isn't going to work. Which is why even Opera Mobile 9.5 is free of charge.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Are you just looking for something to smear Opera with?
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. This is a discussion about Microsoft's violation of the law.
No, this is just a red herring and straw man you cooked up because you cannot refute the fact that Microsoft broke the law, and breaking the law has consequences. I clearly explained to you that this was not about "anything they do is evil". I explained that this was about MS breaking the law.
First of all, it has. Secondly, Microsoft's violations of the law reach beyond OEM bullying. And third, breaking the law has consequences. The market suffers the consequences of Microsoft's violations today, so why shouldn't Microsoft suffer the consequences of its own illegal actions?
I never claimed there was a drop-in replacement. That is not relevant to the fact that Microsoft has broken the law. Microsoft was taken to task for this in the US as well (you never replied to my comment about "anti-Americanism" for some strange reason), so if they chose to push their luck and integrate it even further, they only have themselves to blame. A crime is a crime.
This is not the desktop market, which is where Microsoft has been undermining competition. The mobile market is completely different, and Opera mainly makes money through deals with operators and OEMs. They are probably just charging end-users because there's a lot more money in distribution deals, and they don't want to undermine their business deals by offering for free what businesses would pay for.
Opera Mini is definitely much faster than the old standalone Opera for S60.
Are you retarded? Opera for the desktop has been free of charge for several years.
You must be retarded. Nowhere did Opera say that one needs to charge for browsers. That is not what this is about at all. This is about Microsoft breaking the law by undermining competition.
They don't. You are just saying this because you are completely ignorant of the facts.
When? Maybe it will happen now that the EU will force Microsoft to stop breaking the law.
Opera hasn't sued anyone, you idiot. And Mozilla and Apple are not monopolists.
Are you retarded or just trolling? Opera for PCs has been free for several years. And by the way, their quarterly revenues from the desktop version have increased by 50-100% each quarter the last couple of years.
You are clearly extremely ignorant. This is not a lawsuit. Opera asked the EC to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and the EC has determined that Opera has a point. However, Opera will not make a dime from this. Microsoft will not be forced to pay out to Opera or anything like that.
Then I guess you do the same with Google and Microsoft? You see, both of them have logged antitrust complaints in the US and the EU, even against each other. But hey, I guess it's OK if Microsoft does it, eh?
They won't have to. The OEM will preinstall the browser of their choice for the user.
No, they actively abused their monopoly to destroy competition in the market.
Seriously, are you this ignorant? Opera for PCs has been free of charge for several years!
Exactly! And this is a result of Microsoft's conscious strategy to lock everything into MS-only technologies.
No. Because of lack of competition. Please stop making silly statements, and instead educate yourself on Microsoft's history and behavior.
You mean like one of the many package managers for Linux?
No, the OEM could install it. Or the OEM could install the browser of their choice.
It is your comment which is inane since you are missing the point. And OEMs will preinstall a browser anyway (and Microsoft won't force them to make that browser IE anymore).
Or, clue time, OEMs could install one for them. In addition to a browser.
Come on, are you really this clueless? You really think OEMs wouldn't be able to preinstall anything?
Guess those evil socialists on the US government hate success too.
How's the salary over there at Microsoft these days?
So when the government throws you in jail for 5 years for robbery, it is considering you as state property for the rest of your life?
First of all, it is not a lawsuit. It's a request for the EC to look into monopoly abuse by Microsoft. And the EC agreed with Opera that Microsoft seems to have broken the law.
Opera is a very successful browser. It is currently the leading mobile browser, and the mobile browser market is far from crowded. Skyfire, Netfront, Obigo, TeaShark, ThunderHawk, Novarra, Picsel, etc. Just because you are ignorant of what the mobile browser market looks like doesn't mean that Opera somehow got where they are today by pure luck and chance. Opera started working on this before most other companies even realized that a full browser might actually be a good idea.
You are assuming that Minimo would have killed Opera, but the fact is that Mozilla completely failed to make their case to OEMs and operators. They gave up on that, and Fennec will mostly be aimed at end-users, while Opera both has direct end-user downloads and massive contracts with OEMs and operators. Just because Mozilla does well in one market doesn't mean that they will in another.
Your entire comment is based on misconceptions and finger-pointing without a single connection with reality.
Microsoft has illegally abused its monopoly power, and is therefore not in a position to give customers that. However, OEMs will certainly preinstall their browser of choice, which means that just about everyone will have a preinstalled browser without Microsoft needing to force it on them.
If it can be demonstrated that Microsoft has broken the law, certainly. However, I doubt that you would be able to make a case for that. A browser is unique in that it isn't just part of the OS. It also interfaces with the web, which isn't just tied to one specific OS. Or shouldn't be. Microsoft tried to tie the web exclusively to Windows. This is illegal. They were convicted.
You are basically saying that antitrust laws shouldn't exist, which is quite amazing.
They do. This is extensively documented in the US antitrust case against Microsoft. Microsoft was, because of their monopoly, in a position to threaten OEMs to keep bundling IE even though they wanted to bundle other browsers. Just because you are ignorant of the facts doesn't make the truth a lie.
They don't have to uninstall anything. It's the OEM which will decide which browser is bundled. The end-user gains a better browser because now there will be actual competition in the browser market, and competition benefits everyone because it leads to better products.
Microsoft is not a monopoly because you can't uninstall those. It's a monopoly because it has a monopoly position in the market. Get a clue, please.
We debate how Microsoft should design and sell their OS because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and therefore has certain limitations over other companies. You are clearly extremely uneducated and ignorant on the matter. I suggest you look up antitrust law.
Not in itself, no. They are breaking antitrust laws by using their monopoly position in one market to unlawfully gain dominance in another by preventing competition. They have done so in many different ways, such as threatening OEMs who wanted to bundle other browsers, willfully violating standards and actively working to use their dominant position to lock the market to proprietary technologies, and so on. Did you read the EC statement?
This is not a lawsuit. And if you believe that Microsoft has illegally abused its monopoly power by undermining the file manager market, go ahead and log a complaint.
That was because of poor execution. But that's not the point. The point is that there is already percedent. Do you even remember the exact same case in the US where Microsoft was convicted of destroying competition in the browser market?
Microsoft must be punished because they broke the law. Just because you are ignorant of antitrust laws doesn't mean that the complaint is baseless.
The fact that you personally can download some browser is not relevant to the nature of the complaint. Microsoft still locked the web to their technologies, forcing webmasters to write IE-only code. Since then, browsers like Opera and Firefox have been forced to spend huge amounts of time trying to be IE-compatible. It's a huge waste of resources.
Microsoft broke the law. Deal with it, Microsoft shill.
Not sure what you are saying. If you are saying "let the market sort itself out; if open standards are great, they will win". That does not negate the fact that Microsoft broke the law, though. And it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has continue to break the law, destroying the market.
I don't understand your market share comment. There is a browser market, in case you didn't notice. It's not something you pull out of thin air. It's there. And browsers are a bit more central to people's online experience than feed readers. But by all means, if you can demonstrate that Microsoft has broken the law there as it has in the browser market, feel free.
Actually, OEMs have always wanted to bundle other browsers, but Microsoft has forced them not to by using threats. By illegally abusing their market power, as they have been convicted of in the US.
No, they are only expected to do so if they break the law. Which Microsoft did.
Do you think Microsoft is saying "no problem" today? Of course not. But they broke the law, and that has consequences. If Apple breaks the law, they too will be punished.
Opera isn't "leading" anything. Opera asked the EC to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices in the browser market. Microsoft's violations of the law don't become more or less real depending on who filed the complaint, dear child.