Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows is not an anti-trust matter.
Yeah, that's why the US already convicted them of antitrust abuse for doing it genius.
Where is the harm to the consumer? I don't see any.
Maybe you need to look a little harder. Prices for Windows are higher because they pay the IE developers, nonstandard Web pages are the norm costing Web developers significant time and effort, Web technologies have slowed to a crawl because IE won't support anything made in the last 8 years. I'd say that is platy of harm.
In fact, removing Internet Explorer from Windows would be a burden to the consumer. Even though I'm an experienced Windows user, I didn't even know it came with built-in FTP support, let alone would I know how to use it.
Why would you have to? Has anyone proposed giving computers to end user without an OS and browser pre-installed? Anybody other than random blog posters?
What the fuck is Opera trying to pull here?
They're trying to make money and it just so happens the way they're doing it could be of huge benefit to everyone who uses the Web. Sadly, astroturfers and the significantly uninformed are posting lots of nonsense to the contrary.
Anybody who uses Internet Explorer anyway would just get it from Microsoft's site.
Most people don't download much in the way of software and use whatever comes on their PC. This just means a lot more computers might come with Firefox or Safari or Opera and people would just use those or actually pick a browser on their own. The different browsers being considered either by end users or OEMs is called "competition" and is the cornerstone of capitalism.
te. Does Opera think they will gain more market share?
Yes, along with other benefit such as lower development costs.
To be honest, Opera is just alienating their potential users by coming up with this retarded lawsuit which will harm consumers more than it helps their market share.
This isn't a lawsuit. It's a complaint about a violation of the criminal code. They aren't suing MS, they reported a crime that the EU is prosecuting. You don't think they should enforce their laws as the US did and as they have against all the other companies over the last few years? Why should Microsoft be the only one allowed to break the law?
It's sad when an explanation, a correct one, of the topic is modded as a troll instead of informative. Either there is some serious astroturfing going on here or people are being awfully willful about their ignorance and don't want to know how antitrust law works.
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the EU is just being stupid.
If the EU goes after Microsoft for including a browser, then they must go after Apple for bundling Safari with OS X, KDE for bundling Konqueror, and so forth.
I'm not the Daytona Beach Slayer's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the police force is just being stupid.
If the police force goes after the Daytona Beach Slayer for firing a pistol into prostitutes, then they must go after Olympic pistol competitor Jason Turner for shooting pistols, Pistol big game hunter, Peter Byrne, and so forth.
Oh, wait, bundling a browser and an OS isn't illegal in the general case, just as firing a pistol isn't. Firing a pistol into people to kill them is illegal, just as bundling a monopolized product and one from another market is illegal. This isn't rocket science.
Monopolies operate under different rules. Comparing monopolies to non-monopolies is just stupid, whether its the Apple-Safari or Ubuntu-Firefox bundles, it doesn't matter. Those aren't monopolies so the rules are completely different.
Actually it does matter. You can't ask them not to compete in the generally accepted and equal fashion, you can impose strict rules on how they compete but not prevcent them from competing. If the EU's complaint is limiting competition then any OS that is shipping a default installed browser is actually breaking their rules unless they ship all competing browsers and ensure the user has a clear option of which one to use.
The laws are the same for everyone. No one can bundle a monopolized product with another product in a separate pre-existing market because it undermines that market and breaks capitalism. It's the same law in the US and EU. Bundling products that aren't monopolized does not undermine the free market.
An anti trust rule that forces Microsoft to make DX/D3D work with other platforms or open up the Windows API would work far better to break the monopoly.
No one is trying to break their monopoly, just stop them from specific abuses using it. The US courts were going to break their monopoly before they were bribed. The EU courts won't do it for diplomatic reasons.
The correct solution, however, is to break MS up into multiple companies each with full rights to the Windows source code and half the developers. Then, forbid those companies from any nonpublic communication and let them compete with each other and the rest of the market at the same time. Sadly, it will probably not happen anytime soon.
Gee it's drsmithy, the biggest MS apologist in the world. What fun.
So which features in Windows *aren't* an antitrust violation ?
Anything that did not have a pre-existing market, like the graphical shell and many utilities. Most of the included software applications, however, are violations.
Some minor details you left out of your analogy: the bundled LCD is _free_, every other video card maker also includes one with their video cards, and all the LCD manufacturers are also happy to send you one of their LCDs for free if you ask them.
In the case of the monopoly, there are no other video card makers in the market, that is to say, while one computer company might make their own, they don't sell that to anyone else so everyone that buys them to include in a computer they sell has to go with Nvidia and has to buy the LCD as well. There are free "alternative" LCDs, but they are not suitable for the mainstream market because of incompatibilities with every software program and their use in commercial sales of real computers is basically 0%.
Right. Because if there's one thing that's sure to score repeat customers, it's selling a substanard product when you could be selling a better one at no extra cost.
Ahh, but it is substandard in a way that gives it an artificial advantage, like intentional violation of standards to subtly make it seem like it is all other browsers which are broken, as per the strategy MS laid out to do just that in the documents revealed last time they were convicted of this exact crime in the US.
[...] and that has resulted in the Web advancing very, very slowly for a long time.
Evidence ? How are you measuring "advancement" ? What are the relative rates past vs present ? How are they normalised ?
Please. Have you ever done Web development. We're still using halfway implemented versions of eight year old standards as the state of the art for commercial WEb development. Can you tell me one other software field where advancement has been so absurdly slow? Heck Windows APIs which require updating the whole OS instead of just one library advance like lightening in comparison.
Just give it up. MS is breaking the law. They've already convicted of this action in the US and they never stopped the criminal act. The whole purpose of antitrust law is to prevent these abuses and keep competition and the advantages of low costs and rapid innovation intact. And do you know what, if you're right and this isn't slowing innovation, lets see MS prove it, since in that case unbundling shouldn't hurt them at all. If their browser truly is any good, lets see it compete on even ground and win market share.
I think the major point is that the same rules should not apply to Microsoft because they have a monopoly position in the OS market (or at least a lot of people see them that way).
I agree with most of your post, but your wording here is a bit misleading. Everyone has to follow the same laws. It is illegal for anyone to tie a monopolized product to a product in another pre-exiting market. That applies to MS and Apple and Sony and every other company and these laws have been enforced against many companies and all these companies have lawyers who told them this long ago. Microsoft can't bundle Windows and IE and when they did it they knew they were breaking the law. Apple may or may not be able to tie iPods to the iTunes Music Store, dependent only on whether the iPod has enough influence to constitute a monopoly and the EU has been investigating that very possibility.
With a company with offerings in as many categories as Microsoft has, it's very easy for them to tie strong, popular products to weak or new ones. To an extent this is their prerogative, as any manufacturer can make their products work best in their own environment.
Note, this behavior becomes illegal as soon as the "strong" product moves into the realm of having monopoly influence (usually around 70% market share). For MS, there is no question that Windows is a monopoly since the EU courts have already made that determination in previous cases.
I agree that it would be absurd to have an OS without a web browser at this point, but calling for equal treatment of different OS players would require that the playing field was level, which is not the case.
There is no technical reason why Windows can't ship without a browser or engine and leave it to OEMs to pick the browser and plug-in engine they desire. This is quite different from end users getting a computer without a browser pre-installed, which no one (outside of the clueless) has suggested.
Exactly. How, exactly are windows users supposed to download a new browser if the OS doesn't get shipped with one?
Exactly. How, exactly are windows users supposed to use a DVD drive if the OS doesn't get shipped with one? Hmm, maybe the OEM just might install one like they do tons of other computer components including software packages?
Ubuntu comes with Konquerer, OSX comes with Safari.
Yup, and as soon as any of those products constitute a monopoly you should complain and the EU courts can step in.
Who gives a crap if windows comes with IE?
For starters, Opera does, because they have to spend millions making their browser work with noncompliant pages written to work with IE, because of IE's huge market share, which it would not have unless bundled. Then there's me. I care because I do some Web development and I wast huge amounts of time working around IE's failure to comply with standards, something I wouldn't have to worry about if IE was competing on even ground because everyone would stop using the one, stupid, broken browser that didn't properly view pages. Then there's every serious Web developer who would like to use technologies developed within the last 5-8 years but which MS refuses to implement because they want to keep the Web crippled. Then there's ever Web user out there who would like to use those new technologies to have better graphics that use less bandwidth, video and audio that work everywhere without plug-ins, and Web applications that are fast and fully functional or who would like browser innovation to start up again so they can get better browsers with more features. Then there is every other Web browser developer who is tired of reverse engineering hack after hack to deal with Web pages that are designed to work with IE instead of standards.
But many can't because they have to access IE only Web pages. Those pages exist because MS broke the law and bundled IE. Not only that, MS did that intentionally (as revealed by internal memos) as a way to keep people from switching to other OS's.
I've seen some slanted arguments, but blaming M$ for bad website coding is stretching it.
I take it you did not pay attention to the USDoJ case for this same crime. Internal MS memos pretty much spelled out that was part of their strategy. They called it "embrace, extend, extinguish". It isn't bad coding to write pages that work on 70% of computers, even if those 70% are using broken browser.
Firefox or Apple with Safari didnt need a lawsuit. They are doing fine. They are standard compliant. And IE keeps loosing[sic] market shares.
First, there is no lawsuit, just a compliant about a violation of criminal law. It is more akin to reporting a robbery to the cops than suing someone over a dispute. Second is the question of if IE losing market share as rapidly as it should in a free market or if it is being propped up. Is IE significantly better than Opera, enough to justify it's 70% market share even with its technological inferiority? If it wasn't bundled with Windows would it have that large of share? If MS had not intentionally broken standards to create IE only Web pages would it have that much market share?
I'd also like to address your assertion that Firefox and Safari are standards compliant. They mostly are, but they also spent millions creating work arounds so they can handle non-standards compliant pages such as MS schemed to create as a way to harm competitors. These aren't even facts in doubt as they were established when the US investigated then convicted them of this same crime... the crime they never stopped committing.
It looks like Opera is convinced that their product is the best, and its only Microsoft fault if they are not on everybody's desktop.
No, it looks like Opera wants a fair fight. After all, if IE is a better browser users will pick it over Opera, right? Demanding other companies obey the law is not asking for favoritism.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
Nobody, because the free market was not allowed to judge because MS broke the law. All they're asking for is the chance to fight on even ground so users or OEMs can pick what they think is best instead of having a default and a Web full of pages that only work in one browser.
Maybe they didnt realize that a browser product by itself has little value for the end user (not enough value to pay for it in any case). And that its all about the devices and the content.
Current browsers don't have a lot to offer, but that's because current Web pages are still using decade old technologies to display pages because one particular browser with most of the market has refused to implement any new technologies that might allow users to have a Web capable of making Windows less essential. If IE were to disappear tomorrow replaced by any other browser or combination, the Web would suddenly leap forward technologically and you could run Web apps, view video and audio using standards, develop Web pages in half the time, and use vector graphics to deliver better quality graphics using less bandwidth. MS's criminal actions are more than inconveniencing Opera, they are crippling the Web to keep user locked into Windows.
Apple bundles iTunes, Safari, Mac Mail, iChat and Quicktime with OS X. But nobody complains.
Yup, because none of those products have monopoly influence so you can bundle them all without undermining the market.
If Microsoft can't bundle those apps, nobody else should be able to either.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that bundling applications and OS's is illegal. Do you really think such a law exists? The law says you can't bundle a product that has monopoly influence with a product that is in a separate, pre-existing market. So MS can't bundle products others are making money from with Windows and the EU is looking into stopping Apple from bundling things like iTunes with the iPod (but they have not yet determined if the iPod has enough influence). The law applies to everyone and the EU has enforced it against many companies. None are quite so frequent and blatant in their criminal acts as MS though.
It is clear you don't understand the laws you're talking about or their purpose or how they apply in this case. Why don't you go educate yourself, then come back with an informed view?
..imagine buy a new PC with Windows and not having a browser?
Okay I imagined it. Now how does that have anything to do with this article? Microsoft doesn't bundle DVD drives with Windows, but somehow those seem to be in new computers I buy. What makes you think Sony is going to ship computers without browsers if MS is banned from bundling IE and Windows?
Those who don't like IE can use a different browser and many do.
But many can't because they have to access IE only Web pages. Those pages exist because MS broke the law and bundled IE. Not only that, MS did that intentionally (as revealed by internal memos) as a way to keep people from switching to other OS's.
Why is the E.U. not attacking Apple?
Because Apple hasn't broken the law. You now, the law you didn't bother to gain a basic understanding of before burdening us all with your ill-informed opinions.
...and why should the E.U. decide what goes into MY O.S. ?
The EU isn't trying to decide, they're just making sure MS no longer gets to decide what browser goes on everyone's computer just because they have huge influence in the OS market. Likely they'll leave the decision of what browser to include to OEMs like Dell and Sony so they can compete and so the free market will innovate again.
In my opinion there is a high degree of rediculousness[sic] behind this whole story.
That's because you don't understand how competition drives innovation and how monopolies undermine both competition and retard innovation. If you were a Web developer that wasted 50% of your time working around MS's noncompliance and had to keep using ancient Web technologies because a good portion of people viewing your site were going to be using the only browser with no support for anything but those really old standards you might have a different opinion.
Where is the border between something being a part of an OS and things that aren't?
It doesn't matter. What matters is if there was an existing, separate market for the product they are tying/bundling with their monopolized desktop OS.
Next thing will be for them to want Microsoft to remove the Text editor...
Sounds like a great idea. We can let the OEMs pick whatever text editor they want and maybe some people will have a decent one on the computer they buy in the store.
...the file manager, the GUI...
Sorry, those don't seem to fit.
...and the Image Viewer...
Absolutely, same as the text editor. I bet people will end up with better ones of those too, with some competition, you know like something that handles png and PDF files well.
...leaving you with a command prompt when you install it.
Anyone who installs their own OS probably replaces all those with something decent anyway.
I mean, as much as I dislike using Windows, putting myself in the position of a "I don't know anything about computers and don't really care to learn, I just want them to work." type person, I'd feel really pissed off about not having a browser installed on my system when I buy it
I don't understand why people keep making this absurd statement. Are you all being paid to astroturf from a script or something? Why does what MS includes with Windows mean to what comes on a computer you buy with Windows and other software pre-installed. Do you know any OEMs that don't add software on top of Windows before shipping?
Anyway, I think what the EC should do instead of making Microsoft remove IE from its OS is to start a campaign to advertise alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome...etc).
I doubt that would be nearly as effective as forcing them to remove it from the normal install and making OEMs actively evaluate and pick a browser.
Has there been a similar suit against Macintosh?
Seriously, can you post a copy of that script? Do you even know what antitrust law is? First, this isn't a lawsuit it is a violation of criminal law, that was brought to the EU's attention by a complaint. Second, the law they are breaking is tying (via bundling) a monopolized product (Windows which has well more than 70% normally used as a guideline for monopoly influence) with a non-monopolized product (IE) from a separate market (and by separate I mean before MS bundled it other companies distributed browsers for profit without OS's). Third, Macintosh is a product not a company. It is made by Apple and the Macintosh is one of many complete computer systems in an un-monopolized market. The EU has investigated Apple for tying the iPod to iTunes and the iTunes store, but has not yet decided if the iPod has enough influence to constitute a monopoly.
If Opera thinks that unbundling IE in the European market is going to make the web more standards compliant, they are dreaming. The only thing that'd make the web standards compliant is if somebody policed it and brought punishment to sites that didn't fall in line. Good luck with that, btw.
I don't think anyone is under that illusion although frankly, anything that reduces IE's market share will make the Web more standards compliant since more developers will have incentive to code to the standards. I think they're hoping more for a standards body or group of Web bowser developers to be appointed to making sure IE meets standards and any complaints about standards noncompliance in IE are addressed in a timely manner. Who knows if this will be part of the IE's remedy or not.
I'm not MS lover, but really, at what point does this stop? What if a company with a desire to litigate decides they want to enter the utilities market, but are hampered by the preloaded utilities available in Windows (defrag, search, etc.).
It only applies to pre-existing separate markets. That is, someone has to be selling or in some way making money selling that component separately at the time MS starts bundling it.
Does MS have to strip out features every times someone calls foul? How far will it go... Where's the line?
Does no one learn the basics of antitrust law in Econ anymore?
How many people are there buying computers who would think of thier computer as complete without an internet browser? Is MS evil for catering to this need?
MS doesn't sell computers. MS sells computer components and OEMs build complete systems. It's like if Nvidia managed to monopolize the graphics card market, then started making LCDs integrated with the video card and required all computer manufacturers to buy them as a bundle. If Dell wanted to use a different, cheaper or better LCD they could always throw away the one they were forced to buy right? That wouldn't be unfair to current LCD and monitor makers would it? After all people don't think a computer is complete without and LCD.
Legally, Dell and HP and Sony and other OEMs need to not only be allowed to choose which components to put into their computers, but in the case of monopolies they have to have no influence by the monopoly to include multiple components because one is monopolized. Right now they have a lot of incentives to include a substandard browser with every computer the sell and that has resulted in the Web advancing very, very slowly for a long time.
MS isn't evil for bundling, but they are criminals and many time repeat offenders at that. You may be confused about antitrust law, but their lawyers sure aren't They built their business model on breaking those laws and counting on the profits to be bigger than the bribes and settlements and fines. Basically, they bet their money was more powerful than the courts and so far they've been right. They're criminals and they've retarded the development of the Web and of innovation just for a few more bucks.
On a related note, will Apple have to stop including Safari with OS X?
Why? Do you think they've monopolized the desktop OS market or the Web browser market? Or do you just not understand antitrust law at all and haven't bothered listening to the dozens of explanations people write every time this issue comes up?
I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this.
That's very understandable given the assumptions made by both the summary and the post you're responding to.
I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox.
That's not going to happen. No remedy is going to stop Dell or HP from bundling what they want, just Microsoft. From the end user perspective it means you might get a different browser pre-installed and if you build your own computer from components you may have to burn a CD with a browser on it.
What exactly are they hoping to gain?
Opera's complaint specifically addressed the fact that MS's abuse has resulted in a huge portion of the Web no longer being standards compliant and that this was part of MS's intention as revealed by their internal memos. I suspect Opera hopes for several things possibly including, Windows shipping with multiple browsers and MS being forced to make IE standards compliant and supporting a reasonable level of new standards on par with all the other browsers. Both moves would significantly benefit Opera both in market share and because they would not have to try to write a noncompliant mode for their browser to deal with all the pages designed to work with IE instead of standards and there would no longer be such a barrier to companies looking to switch browsers. Note, Opera said nothing about forcing MS to ship a version without IE, that was just other people's assumption based upon the EU's failed attempt at remedying the media player market.
Are they really arguing that new computers should ship with no internet browser what so ever?
No. That's just something people who don't know what they're talking about and who such a ruling would affect keep mentioning. Ignore them. It makes no sense to anyone who even slightly understands antitrust law and this case.
Then I hope it starts to get better soon, because there's nothing particularly interesting here.
Actually I think all those are interesting factoids. Mind you, they aren't necessarily representative of Obama's appointees or for that matter as bad as ones Bush made.
So the AG is from the Clinton admin. So he isn't a gun nut. Cry me a river.
It isn't a matter of him being a "gun nut" and trying to paint people who interpret the second amendment sanely as "nuts" does nothing to help your case. Whether they want to admit it or not, the second amendment clearly presents gun ownership as a personal right and there is tons of supporting documentation for that interpretation while pretty much just wishful thinking from the opposing camp. People who claim otherwise are just playing politics and trying to justify unconstitutional actions and laws because they thing it will get them or their party votes (which it often does). If a person is willing to basically lie about what the constitution says and usurp rights it protects (rather than getting the amendment overturned) then they are being unethical. You also have to wonder how they will interpret other very clear subjects in the constitution when it is to their benefit to misinterpret them.
Wake me when they're championing torture, bribing commentators, and making shady business deals in secret.
This is the "we're not as bad as China" defense constantly used by the Bush administration to try to paint their unethical acts as not as bad as others and therefor acceptable. It didn't fly then and it doesn't now.
Plus, would this really do anything to move us away from keeping things in MS formats since Google Apps work with them?
OpenOffice works with MS formats. The point being your documents are not locked into that format and open formats workflows are just as functional. By default it interfaces via any Web browser (all of which are free) rather than using a proprietary client and server, both of which cost money for every seat.
Actually, you are on the anti-freedom side of this argument, because you advocate government action, and that entails the use of force against individuals.
What a joke. Letting people decide for themselves, as individuals whether or not to get married is anti-freedom. You can rationalize anything to support your attempt to take away the freedoms of individuals to do things you don't personally approve of. You make me sick. Why don't you move to Iran?
You say that your "right" to throw a punch ends where it contacts someone else. Why, then, is it okay for a police officer to do do the same?
Umm, do you even know what you're talking about?
The government is a vessel for granting authority to certain individuals.
Way to fail civics class. The government's purpose, according to the founding fathers, is to mitigate disputes when individual rights conflict. They don't grant any rights and the constitution specifically states that people's rights and freedoms are inherent. The government just passes laws to specify when the action of one person is infringing on the rights of another. Please educate yourself.
This gay marriage thing is a prime example. Gay "couples" want the legal authority to exclude family members from hospital rooms, or the legal authority to sue their employer to offer their partner specific benefits.
Not at all. Gays are demanding their constitutionally protected equal rights to government services. The government created a legal status of marriage and conferred certain benefits to people who entered into it. Technically, the government should never have acknowledged marriage and no law that depends upon marriage should exist, but since it does, it must offer that service equally to everyone instead of offering it only to some citizens, because that preferential treatment is taking tax dollars from one group and giving it to another based upon illegal criteria (race, sex, or religion).
Gay marriage has nothing to do with private businesses providing benefits and gay couples can already sue their employers for such discrimination (not that they have much chance of winning).
I say "why bother". It's not a step toward freedom, it's a step away from it.
Because it is equal rights for all, you know equality under the law one of the single most important principals of the founding fathers and why the cited the Magna Carta so many times?
Exactly! Yet everybody on/. and on this thread posts as if this is a truism.
It isn't a truism, but that doens't mean it isn't highly likely. Every time we've gained access to such contracts they have had illegal clauses. Based upon this, do you guess current clauses do or don't have illegal clauses?
There's simply nothing for the EU to act on here.
Umm, this is an open and shut case where MS is clearly breaking the law according to every knowledgeable news source and legal expert. The US convicted them of this and they're doing the same thing still and the laws are almost identical. Normally after being convicted of a crime, you stop doing it. MS bribed the US courts instead. They're going to be found guilty and hopefully the EU will actually force them to change their behavior.
Depending upon what the remedy is, this could revolutionize the Web causing it to suddenly leap forward technologically becoming a much more viable platform for Web application, supporting audio and video across all platforms and devices with downloading plug-ins, allowing for vector graphics that download faster and look better and work in all browsers. This could save Web developers huge amounts of work they have to put in today. MS's leveraging of Windows to keep IE the standard and their vested interest in keeping IE and the Web crippled so it can't allow people to use other OS's is a huge deal and certainly something the US should have and would have acted upon many years ago if not for corruption.
They're just making an ATM withdrawal - plain and simple.
Bullshit. Show me why these commissioners would care to try to extort money from MS, when none of it goes to them. The commission has gone out of its way in the past to be diplomatic and give the US courts every chance to act in their stead. They repeatedly gave MS slap on the writ fines in the face of behavior that would not have been tolerated by other companies without the diplomatic issue with the states. We're talking about a company that has been breaking the law as part of their business model for years and years, has been convicted again and again and has not only not stopped the illegal behavior but has committed new crimes to go along with them. The EU has treated MS differently, but in the opposite direction you imply. They have been much harder on EU companies with similar issues. It is way past time for MS to be stopped and for the market to be fixed. One companies illegal profits are not worth crippling entire industries that were developing rapidly before these crimes occurred.
What's absurd is the average Slashdotter's understanding of economics and antitrust law.
Nobody ever thinks about why Opera is doing this - it isn't because they love "the people" and want to ensure they get a good browser.
This is both a strawman and irrelevant. It's like arguing that when Opera calls the cops after someone robs their office no one thinks if they're doing it out of love of the people. Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean people think they are and it doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce either antitrust laws or theft laws because of it. Sometimes when people act in their own best interests (like reporting a theft of their property) the laws can work in the best interests of that company and society.
It's because they really want some more of that money.
Gee really? Corporations want money? Thanks for the inside info genius.
...if you can't defeat your competitors in the open market, then get government to handicap them for you.
Yeah, I also get the government to handicap the mafia for me by forcing them to obey the criminal law codes that apply to everyone.
But seriously, how the does EU "law" even work?
So let me be sure understand you. You don't know how the law works, but you though instead of learning you'd come to Slashdot and post about how stupid the laws you don't understand are? That's just brilliant.
I'm not even going to insult Hammurabi by calling them "laws." I'm going to henceforth refer to EU ruling as "Lord Fauntleroy's Whims".
Yeah those whimsical europeans copying american antitrust laws almost exactly. What nonsensical hilarity.
So lemme get this straight: They ruled in 2002 that MS had to decouple IE from Windows, and allow users not to have it as the default browser, yadda yadda yadda, all so other browser makers could "compete."
Umm correct assuming the "they" in your sentence is the US court system.
And I'm really sure that your average user, when confronted with an OS with *no* browser is really going to go comparison-shopping.
You think users would be involved, how cute. Guess what users generally never install Windows and the same magical fairies that install Windows on computers (OEMs) are probably going to put a browser on as well.
Anyway, so now, the commission has *further* decided that Microsoft can't even include IE at all, because Opera bitched about it?
No, the commission has decided that MS bundling Windows and IE seems to be illegal. This isn't terribly surprising since the US already convicted them of the same crime and so did several other countries. The EU has just convicted MS of other crimes regarding other antitrust abuses. The EU just notified Microsoft that they're going forward with the complaint and gave them a couple of months to respond before they go ahead with the prosecution.
Seriously, when does it end? When Opera's happy? What's next?
When MS stops breaking the law and changes their business model to a legal one. So far MS has been intentionally breaking the law and paying the fines and settlements under the assumption that the courts are weak and ineffective. The US proved them right since after MS very large campaign contributions all their legal problems magically went away there. It has come to the point where american companies like Sun take MS to court in the EU because they have no confidence in the US court system. Hopefully the EU will effectively punish MS to the point that they stop their illegal actions and level the playing field.
I don't know if you've noticed but Web technologies pretty much suck these days. Web pages still use half completed versions of decade old specific
So if MS sold computer hardware - say they release the Windows X PC next year, and it's widely touted as THE BEST system to run Windows on - then you'd be fine with them bundling whatever software they wanted.
Only provided they stop selling their OS to other companies as well. They can enter into the not monopolized computer system market if they want and bundle whatever they want (except other monopolized products), provided they get rid of their monopoly on selling desktop OS's either by leaving that market or by losing market share to others.
In fact, to get the BEST version of Windows, with all the features (eg. Windows Media Player, IE, backup software, etc), you'd have to buy their PC.
Nope. That would mean they are still selling their desktop OS to others and thus still have monopoly influence, which they are leveraging into the computer system market. That's illegal.
It's a fine line you're drawing. Be careful that you don't muss it up while you're hopping over it.
I'm not drawing any lines, just reiterating the markets as both economists and the courts have described them.
Hmm, which seems more probable, that the US, EU, and several other courts, pretty much all economists, and my own understanding of the law are all incorrect in declaring MS a monopolist... or that RightSaidFred99 on a Web forum knows more about antitrust laws and monopolies than all of us. Let me ponder that and get back to you.
I know, you'll trot out the tired "but OEMs would add a browser!" argument. The fact is the existence or non-existence of OEMs is irrelevent[sic].
You know just because you say something doesn't make it true. OEMs are the primary customer for the product we are discussing and the most important element in defining the market legally. Its like going into a theft trial and claiming who owned the stolen materials does not matter.
People do also just buy the OS off the shelf.
But not enough to make up a relevant part of MS's market.
No. This is just a stupid argument by a loser company.
Yeah, just like the same stupid argument made by the US DoJ when they convicted MS of the very same thing and won the appeals. It's just like the stupid argument that was made several other courts around the world all of whom convicted MS. They're all so stupid compared to you huh?
The OEMs are free to include other browsers on their machines.
Sure they are and I'm free to drive down to the power plant and charge up hundreds of batteries every day then plug them in to my house to avoid the local electrical power distribution monopoly. That doesn't make it any less of a monopoly or make any antitrust actions they take have less of an affect upon me.
You really need to educate yourself before arguing about a topic. Used economics textbooks are dirt cheap and antitrust law hasn't changed in a century. Buy one. Read it.
Factually incorrect. Can you point us to the clause in the T & C? You don't think Opera would have mentioned it in their complaint?
Generally MS's contracts are unavailable and un-distributable because they are classified as trade secrets. The last time we had a court ordered discovery, however, there were plenty of illegal and antitrust issue clauses in them. It's one of the reasons MS has been settling many of these lawsuits instead of fighting them.
You're correct, however, in that there is to my knowledge no publicly available proof that such a clause is currently in those contracts.
2. Web browsers and operating systems are separate markets.
No, they're not. Never have been.
Yeah all those people that paid money for Opera or Omniweb were suffering from a mass delusion. It's all part of an Illuminati conspiracy you see, including drugs in the water that made people think they were getting a Netscape CD with their hardware purchase when really it was a flying saucer for really small aliens.
drsmithy, do you ever stop making up crap to try to explain away anything unethical or illegal MS has ever done?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows is not an anti-trust matter.
Yeah, that's why the US already convicted them of antitrust abuse for doing it genius.
Where is the harm to the consumer? I don't see any.
Maybe you need to look a little harder. Prices for Windows are higher because they pay the IE developers, nonstandard Web pages are the norm costing Web developers significant time and effort, Web technologies have slowed to a crawl because IE won't support anything made in the last 8 years. I'd say that is platy of harm.
In fact, removing Internet Explorer from Windows would be a burden to the consumer. Even though I'm an experienced Windows user, I didn't even know it came with built-in FTP support, let alone would I know how to use it.
Why would you have to? Has anyone proposed giving computers to end user without an OS and browser pre-installed? Anybody other than random blog posters?
What the fuck is Opera trying to pull here?
They're trying to make money and it just so happens the way they're doing it could be of huge benefit to everyone who uses the Web. Sadly, astroturfers and the significantly uninformed are posting lots of nonsense to the contrary.
Anybody who uses Internet Explorer anyway would just get it from Microsoft's site.
Most people don't download much in the way of software and use whatever comes on their PC. This just means a lot more computers might come with Firefox or Safari or Opera and people would just use those or actually pick a browser on their own. The different browsers being considered either by end users or OEMs is called "competition" and is the cornerstone of capitalism.
te. Does Opera think they will gain more market share?
Yes, along with other benefit such as lower development costs.
To be honest, Opera is just alienating their potential users by coming up with this retarded lawsuit which will harm consumers more than it helps their market share.
This isn't a lawsuit. It's a complaint about a violation of the criminal code. They aren't suing MS, they reported a crime that the EU is prosecuting. You don't think they should enforce their laws as the US did and as they have against all the other companies over the last few years? Why should Microsoft be the only one allowed to break the law?
It's sad when an explanation, a correct one, of the topic is modded as a troll instead of informative. Either there is some serious astroturfing going on here or people are being awfully willful about their ignorance and don't want to know how antitrust law works.
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the EU is just being stupid. If the EU goes after Microsoft for including a browser, then they must go after Apple for bundling Safari with OS X, KDE for bundling Konqueror, and so forth.
I'm not the Daytona Beach Slayer's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the police force is just being stupid. If the police force goes after the Daytona Beach Slayer for firing a pistol into prostitutes, then they must go after Olympic pistol competitor Jason Turner for shooting pistols, Pistol big game hunter, Peter Byrne, and so forth.
Oh, wait, bundling a browser and an OS isn't illegal in the general case, just as firing a pistol isn't. Firing a pistol into people to kill them is illegal, just as bundling a monopolized product and one from another market is illegal. This isn't rocket science.
Monopolies operate under different rules. Comparing monopolies to non-monopolies is just stupid, whether its the Apple-Safari or Ubuntu-Firefox bundles, it doesn't matter. Those aren't monopolies so the rules are completely different.
Actually it does matter. You can't ask them not to compete in the generally accepted and equal fashion, you can impose strict rules on how they compete but not prevcent them from competing. If the EU's complaint is limiting competition then any OS that is shipping a default installed browser is actually breaking their rules unless they ship all competing browsers and ensure the user has a clear option of which one to use.
The laws are the same for everyone. No one can bundle a monopolized product with another product in a separate pre-existing market because it undermines that market and breaks capitalism. It's the same law in the US and EU. Bundling products that aren't monopolized does not undermine the free market.
An anti trust rule that forces Microsoft to make DX/D3D work with other platforms or open up the Windows API would work far better to break the monopoly.
No one is trying to break their monopoly, just stop them from specific abuses using it. The US courts were going to break their monopoly before they were bribed. The EU courts won't do it for diplomatic reasons.
The correct solution, however, is to break MS up into multiple companies each with full rights to the Windows source code and half the developers. Then, forbid those companies from any nonpublic communication and let them compete with each other and the rest of the market at the same time. Sadly, it will probably not happen anytime soon.
Gee it's drsmithy, the biggest MS apologist in the world. What fun.
So which features in Windows *aren't* an antitrust violation ?
Anything that did not have a pre-existing market, like the graphical shell and many utilities. Most of the included software applications, however, are violations.
Some minor details you left out of your analogy: the bundled LCD is _free_, every other video card maker also includes one with their video cards, and all the LCD manufacturers are also happy to send you one of their LCDs for free if you ask them.
In the case of the monopoly, there are no other video card makers in the market, that is to say, while one computer company might make their own, they don't sell that to anyone else so everyone that buys them to include in a computer they sell has to go with Nvidia and has to buy the LCD as well. There are free "alternative" LCDs, but they are not suitable for the mainstream market because of incompatibilities with every software program and their use in commercial sales of real computers is basically 0%.
Right. Because if there's one thing that's sure to score repeat customers, it's selling a substanard product when you could be selling a better one at no extra cost.
Ahh, but it is substandard in a way that gives it an artificial advantage, like intentional violation of standards to subtly make it seem like it is all other browsers which are broken, as per the strategy MS laid out to do just that in the documents revealed last time they were convicted of this exact crime in the US.
[...] and that has resulted in the Web advancing very, very slowly for a long time.
Evidence ? How are you measuring "advancement" ? What are the relative rates past vs present ? How are they normalised ?
Please. Have you ever done Web development. We're still using halfway implemented versions of eight year old standards as the state of the art for commercial WEb development. Can you tell me one other software field where advancement has been so absurdly slow? Heck Windows APIs which require updating the whole OS instead of just one library advance like lightening in comparison.
Just give it up. MS is breaking the law. They've already convicted of this action in the US and they never stopped the criminal act. The whole purpose of antitrust law is to prevent these abuses and keep competition and the advantages of low costs and rapid innovation intact. And do you know what, if you're right and this isn't slowing innovation, lets see MS prove it, since in that case unbundling shouldn't hurt them at all. If their browser truly is any good, lets see it compete on even ground and win market share.
I think the major point is that the same rules should not apply to Microsoft because they have a monopoly position in the OS market (or at least a lot of people see them that way).
I agree with most of your post, but your wording here is a bit misleading. Everyone has to follow the same laws. It is illegal for anyone to tie a monopolized product to a product in another pre-exiting market. That applies to MS and Apple and Sony and every other company and these laws have been enforced against many companies and all these companies have lawyers who told them this long ago. Microsoft can't bundle Windows and IE and when they did it they knew they were breaking the law. Apple may or may not be able to tie iPods to the iTunes Music Store, dependent only on whether the iPod has enough influence to constitute a monopoly and the EU has been investigating that very possibility.
With a company with offerings in as many categories as Microsoft has, it's very easy for them to tie strong, popular products to weak or new ones. To an extent this is their prerogative, as any manufacturer can make their products work best in their own environment.
Note, this behavior becomes illegal as soon as the "strong" product moves into the realm of having monopoly influence (usually around 70% market share). For MS, there is no question that Windows is a monopoly since the EU courts have already made that determination in previous cases.
I agree that it would be absurd to have an OS without a web browser at this point, but calling for equal treatment of different OS players would require that the playing field was level, which is not the case.
There is no technical reason why Windows can't ship without a browser or engine and leave it to OEMs to pick the browser and plug-in engine they desire. This is quite different from end users getting a computer without a browser pre-installed, which no one (outside of the clueless) has suggested.
Exactly. How, exactly are windows users supposed to download a new browser if the OS doesn't get shipped with one?
Exactly. How, exactly are windows users supposed to use a DVD drive if the OS doesn't get shipped with one? Hmm, maybe the OEM just might install one like they do tons of other computer components including software packages?
Ubuntu comes with Konquerer, OSX comes with Safari.
Yup, and as soon as any of those products constitute a monopoly you should complain and the EU courts can step in.
Who gives a crap if windows comes with IE?
For starters, Opera does, because they have to spend millions making their browser work with noncompliant pages written to work with IE, because of IE's huge market share, which it would not have unless bundled. Then there's me. I care because I do some Web development and I wast huge amounts of time working around IE's failure to comply with standards, something I wouldn't have to worry about if IE was competing on even ground because everyone would stop using the one, stupid, broken browser that didn't properly view pages. Then there's every serious Web developer who would like to use technologies developed within the last 5-8 years but which MS refuses to implement because they want to keep the Web crippled. Then there's ever Web user out there who would like to use those new technologies to have better graphics that use less bandwidth, video and audio that work everywhere without plug-ins, and Web applications that are fast and fully functional or who would like browser innovation to start up again so they can get better browsers with more features. Then there is every other Web browser developer who is tired of reverse engineering hack after hack to deal with Web pages that are designed to work with IE instead of standards.
But many can't because they have to access IE only Web pages. Those pages exist because MS broke the law and bundled IE. Not only that, MS did that intentionally (as revealed by internal memos) as a way to keep people from switching to other OS's.
I've seen some slanted arguments, but blaming M$ for bad website coding is stretching it.
I take it you did not pay attention to the USDoJ case for this same crime. Internal MS memos pretty much spelled out that was part of their strategy. They called it "embrace, extend, extinguish". It isn't bad coding to write pages that work on 70% of computers, even if those 70% are using broken browser.
Firefox or Apple with Safari didnt need a lawsuit. They are doing fine. They are standard compliant. And IE keeps loosing[sic] market shares.
First, there is no lawsuit, just a compliant about a violation of criminal law. It is more akin to reporting a robbery to the cops than suing someone over a dispute. Second is the question of if IE losing market share as rapidly as it should in a free market or if it is being propped up. Is IE significantly better than Opera, enough to justify it's 70% market share even with its technological inferiority? If it wasn't bundled with Windows would it have that large of share? If MS had not intentionally broken standards to create IE only Web pages would it have that much market share?
I'd also like to address your assertion that Firefox and Safari are standards compliant. They mostly are, but they also spent millions creating work arounds so they can handle non-standards compliant pages such as MS schemed to create as a way to harm competitors. These aren't even facts in doubt as they were established when the US investigated then convicted them of this same crime... the crime they never stopped committing.
It looks like Opera is convinced that their product is the best, and its only Microsoft fault if they are not on everybody's desktop.
No, it looks like Opera wants a fair fight. After all, if IE is a better browser users will pick it over Opera, right? Demanding other companies obey the law is not asking for favoritism.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
Nobody, because the free market was not allowed to judge because MS broke the law. All they're asking for is the chance to fight on even ground so users or OEMs can pick what they think is best instead of having a default and a Web full of pages that only work in one browser.
Maybe they didnt realize that a browser product by itself has little value for the end user (not enough value to pay for it in any case). And that its all about the devices and the content.
Current browsers don't have a lot to offer, but that's because current Web pages are still using decade old technologies to display pages because one particular browser with most of the market has refused to implement any new technologies that might allow users to have a Web capable of making Windows less essential. If IE were to disappear tomorrow replaced by any other browser or combination, the Web would suddenly leap forward technologically and you could run Web apps, view video and audio using standards, develop Web pages in half the time, and use vector graphics to deliver better quality graphics using less bandwidth. MS's criminal actions are more than inconveniencing Opera, they are crippling the Web to keep user locked into Windows.
Apple bundles iTunes, Safari, Mac Mail, iChat and Quicktime with OS X. But nobody complains.
Yup, because none of those products have monopoly influence so you can bundle them all without undermining the market.
If Microsoft can't bundle those apps, nobody else should be able to either.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that bundling applications and OS's is illegal. Do you really think such a law exists? The law says you can't bundle a product that has monopoly influence with a product that is in a separate, pre-existing market. So MS can't bundle products others are making money from with Windows and the EU is looking into stopping Apple from bundling things like iTunes with the iPod (but they have not yet determined if the iPod has enough influence). The law applies to everyone and the EU has enforced it against many companies. None are quite so frequent and blatant in their criminal acts as MS though.
It is clear you don't understand the laws you're talking about or their purpose or how they apply in this case. Why don't you go educate yourself, then come back with an informed view?
..imagine buy a new PC with Windows and not having a browser?
Okay I imagined it. Now how does that have anything to do with this article? Microsoft doesn't bundle DVD drives with Windows, but somehow those seem to be in new computers I buy. What makes you think Sony is going to ship computers without browsers if MS is banned from bundling IE and Windows?
Those who don't like IE can use a different browser and many do.
But many can't because they have to access IE only Web pages. Those pages exist because MS broke the law and bundled IE. Not only that, MS did that intentionally (as revealed by internal memos) as a way to keep people from switching to other OS's.
Why is the E.U. not attacking Apple?
Because Apple hasn't broken the law. You now, the law you didn't bother to gain a basic understanding of before burdening us all with your ill-informed opinions.
...and why should the E.U. decide what goes into MY O.S. ?
The EU isn't trying to decide, they're just making sure MS no longer gets to decide what browser goes on everyone's computer just because they have huge influence in the OS market. Likely they'll leave the decision of what browser to include to OEMs like Dell and Sony so they can compete and so the free market will innovate again.
In my opinion there is a high degree of rediculousness[sic] behind this whole story.
That's because you don't understand how competition drives innovation and how monopolies undermine both competition and retard innovation. If you were a Web developer that wasted 50% of your time working around MS's noncompliance and had to keep using ancient Web technologies because a good portion of people viewing your site were going to be using the only browser with no support for anything but those really old standards you might have a different opinion.
Where is the border between something being a part of an OS and things that aren't?
It doesn't matter. What matters is if there was an existing, separate market for the product they are tying/bundling with their monopolized desktop OS.
Next thing will be for them to want Microsoft to remove the Text editor...
Sounds like a great idea. We can let the OEMs pick whatever text editor they want and maybe some people will have a decent one on the computer they buy in the store.
...the file manager, the GUI...
Sorry, those don't seem to fit.
...and the Image Viewer...
Absolutely, same as the text editor. I bet people will end up with better ones of those too, with some competition, you know like something that handles png and PDF files well.
...leaving you with a command prompt when you install it.
Anyone who installs their own OS probably replaces all those with something decent anyway.
I mean, as much as I dislike using Windows, putting myself in the position of a "I don't know anything about computers and don't really care to learn, I just want them to work." type person, I'd feel really pissed off about not having a browser installed on my system when I buy it
I don't understand why people keep making this absurd statement. Are you all being paid to astroturf from a script or something? Why does what MS includes with Windows mean to what comes on a computer you buy with Windows and other software pre-installed. Do you know any OEMs that don't add software on top of Windows before shipping?
Anyway, I think what the EC should do instead of making Microsoft remove IE from its OS is to start a campaign to advertise alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome...etc).
I doubt that would be nearly as effective as forcing them to remove it from the normal install and making OEMs actively evaluate and pick a browser.
Has there been a similar suit against Macintosh?
Seriously, can you post a copy of that script? Do you even know what antitrust law is? First, this isn't a lawsuit it is a violation of criminal law, that was brought to the EU's attention by a complaint. Second, the law they are breaking is tying (via bundling) a monopolized product (Windows which has well more than 70% normally used as a guideline for monopoly influence) with a non-monopolized product (IE) from a separate market (and by separate I mean before MS bundled it other companies distributed browsers for profit without OS's). Third, Macintosh is a product not a company. It is made by Apple and the Macintosh is one of many complete computer systems in an un-monopolized market. The EU has investigated Apple for tying the iPod to iTunes and the iTunes store, but has not yet decided if the iPod has enough influence to constitute a monopoly.
If Opera thinks that unbundling IE in the European market is going to make the web more standards compliant, they are dreaming. The only thing that'd make the web standards compliant is if somebody policed it and brought punishment to sites that didn't fall in line. Good luck with that, btw.
I don't think anyone is under that illusion although frankly, anything that reduces IE's market share will make the Web more standards compliant since more developers will have incentive to code to the standards. I think they're hoping more for a standards body or group of Web bowser developers to be appointed to making sure IE meets standards and any complaints about standards noncompliance in IE are addressed in a timely manner. Who knows if this will be part of the IE's remedy or not.
I'm not MS lover, but really, at what point does this stop? What if a company with a desire to litigate decides they want to enter the utilities market, but are hampered by the preloaded utilities available in Windows (defrag, search, etc.).
It only applies to pre-existing separate markets. That is, someone has to be selling or in some way making money selling that component separately at the time MS starts bundling it.
Does MS have to strip out features every times someone calls foul? How far will it go... Where's the line?
Does no one learn the basics of antitrust law in Econ anymore?
How many people are there buying computers who would think of thier computer as complete without an internet browser? Is MS evil for catering to this need?
MS doesn't sell computers. MS sells computer components and OEMs build complete systems. It's like if Nvidia managed to monopolize the graphics card market, then started making LCDs integrated with the video card and required all computer manufacturers to buy them as a bundle. If Dell wanted to use a different, cheaper or better LCD they could always throw away the one they were forced to buy right? That wouldn't be unfair to current LCD and monitor makers would it? After all people don't think a computer is complete without and LCD.
Legally, Dell and HP and Sony and other OEMs need to not only be allowed to choose which components to put into their computers, but in the case of monopolies they have to have no influence by the monopoly to include multiple components because one is monopolized. Right now they have a lot of incentives to include a substandard browser with every computer the sell and that has resulted in the Web advancing very, very slowly for a long time.
MS isn't evil for bundling, but they are criminals and many time repeat offenders at that. You may be confused about antitrust law, but their lawyers sure aren't They built their business model on breaking those laws and counting on the profits to be bigger than the bribes and settlements and fines. Basically, they bet their money was more powerful than the courts and so far they've been right. They're criminals and they've retarded the development of the Web and of innovation just for a few more bucks.
On a related note, will Apple have to stop including Safari with OS X?
Why? Do you think they've monopolized the desktop OS market or the Web browser market? Or do you just not understand antitrust law at all and haven't bothered listening to the dozens of explanations people write every time this issue comes up?
I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this.
That's very understandable given the assumptions made by both the summary and the post you're responding to.
I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox.
That's not going to happen. No remedy is going to stop Dell or HP from bundling what they want, just Microsoft. From the end user perspective it means you might get a different browser pre-installed and if you build your own computer from components you may have to burn a CD with a browser on it.
What exactly are they hoping to gain?
Opera's complaint specifically addressed the fact that MS's abuse has resulted in a huge portion of the Web no longer being standards compliant and that this was part of MS's intention as revealed by their internal memos. I suspect Opera hopes for several things possibly including, Windows shipping with multiple browsers and MS being forced to make IE standards compliant and supporting a reasonable level of new standards on par with all the other browsers. Both moves would significantly benefit Opera both in market share and because they would not have to try to write a noncompliant mode for their browser to deal with all the pages designed to work with IE instead of standards and there would no longer be such a barrier to companies looking to switch browsers. Note, Opera said nothing about forcing MS to ship a version without IE, that was just other people's assumption based upon the EU's failed attempt at remedying the media player market.
Are they really arguing that new computers should ship with no internet browser what so ever?
No. That's just something people who don't know what they're talking about and who such a ruling would affect keep mentioning. Ignore them. It makes no sense to anyone who even slightly understands antitrust law and this case.
Then I hope it starts to get better soon, because there's nothing particularly interesting here.
Actually I think all those are interesting factoids. Mind you, they aren't necessarily representative of Obama's appointees or for that matter as bad as ones Bush made.
So the AG is from the Clinton admin. So he isn't a gun nut. Cry me a river.
It isn't a matter of him being a "gun nut" and trying to paint people who interpret the second amendment sanely as "nuts" does nothing to help your case. Whether they want to admit it or not, the second amendment clearly presents gun ownership as a personal right and there is tons of supporting documentation for that interpretation while pretty much just wishful thinking from the opposing camp. People who claim otherwise are just playing politics and trying to justify unconstitutional actions and laws because they thing it will get them or their party votes (which it often does). If a person is willing to basically lie about what the constitution says and usurp rights it protects (rather than getting the amendment overturned) then they are being unethical. You also have to wonder how they will interpret other very clear subjects in the constitution when it is to their benefit to misinterpret them.
Wake me when they're championing torture, bribing commentators, and making shady business deals in secret.
This is the "we're not as bad as China" defense constantly used by the Bush administration to try to paint their unethical acts as not as bad as others and therefor acceptable. It didn't fly then and it doesn't now.
Plus, would this really do anything to move us away from keeping things in MS formats since Google Apps work with them?
OpenOffice works with MS formats. The point being your documents are not locked into that format and open formats workflows are just as functional. By default it interfaces via any Web browser (all of which are free) rather than using a proprietary client and server, both of which cost money for every seat.
Actually, you are on the anti-freedom side of this argument, because you advocate government action, and that entails the use of force against individuals.
What a joke. Letting people decide for themselves, as individuals whether or not to get married is anti-freedom. You can rationalize anything to support your attempt to take away the freedoms of individuals to do things you don't personally approve of. You make me sick. Why don't you move to Iran?
You say that your "right" to throw a punch ends where it contacts someone else. Why, then, is it okay for a police officer to do do the same?
Umm, do you even know what you're talking about?
The government is a vessel for granting authority to certain individuals.
Way to fail civics class. The government's purpose, according to the founding fathers, is to mitigate disputes when individual rights conflict. They don't grant any rights and the constitution specifically states that people's rights and freedoms are inherent. The government just passes laws to specify when the action of one person is infringing on the rights of another. Please educate yourself.
This gay marriage thing is a prime example. Gay "couples" want the legal authority to exclude family members from hospital rooms, or the legal authority to sue their employer to offer their partner specific benefits.
Not at all. Gays are demanding their constitutionally protected equal rights to government services. The government created a legal status of marriage and conferred certain benefits to people who entered into it. Technically, the government should never have acknowledged marriage and no law that depends upon marriage should exist, but since it does, it must offer that service equally to everyone instead of offering it only to some citizens, because that preferential treatment is taking tax dollars from one group and giving it to another based upon illegal criteria (race, sex, or religion).
Gay marriage has nothing to do with private businesses providing benefits and gay couples can already sue their employers for such discrimination (not that they have much chance of winning).
I say "why bother". It's not a step toward freedom, it's a step away from it.
Because it is equal rights for all, you know equality under the law one of the single most important principals of the founding fathers and why the cited the Magna Carta so many times?
Exactly! Yet everybody on /. and on this thread posts as if this is a truism.
It isn't a truism, but that doens't mean it isn't highly likely. Every time we've gained access to such contracts they have had illegal clauses. Based upon this, do you guess current clauses do or don't have illegal clauses?
There's simply nothing for the EU to act on here.
Umm, this is an open and shut case where MS is clearly breaking the law according to every knowledgeable news source and legal expert. The US convicted them of this and they're doing the same thing still and the laws are almost identical. Normally after being convicted of a crime, you stop doing it. MS bribed the US courts instead. They're going to be found guilty and hopefully the EU will actually force them to change their behavior.
Depending upon what the remedy is, this could revolutionize the Web causing it to suddenly leap forward technologically becoming a much more viable platform for Web application, supporting audio and video across all platforms and devices with downloading plug-ins, allowing for vector graphics that download faster and look better and work in all browsers. This could save Web developers huge amounts of work they have to put in today. MS's leveraging of Windows to keep IE the standard and their vested interest in keeping IE and the Web crippled so it can't allow people to use other OS's is a huge deal and certainly something the US should have and would have acted upon many years ago if not for corruption.
They're just making an ATM withdrawal - plain and simple.
Bullshit. Show me why these commissioners would care to try to extort money from MS, when none of it goes to them. The commission has gone out of its way in the past to be diplomatic and give the US courts every chance to act in their stead. They repeatedly gave MS slap on the writ fines in the face of behavior that would not have been tolerated by other companies without the diplomatic issue with the states. We're talking about a company that has been breaking the law as part of their business model for years and years, has been convicted again and again and has not only not stopped the illegal behavior but has committed new crimes to go along with them. The EU has treated MS differently, but in the opposite direction you imply. They have been much harder on EU companies with similar issues. It is way past time for MS to be stopped and for the market to be fixed. One companies illegal profits are not worth crippling entire industries that were developing rapidly before these crimes occurred.
The absurdity of this is overwhelming.
What's absurd is the average Slashdotter's understanding of economics and antitrust law.
Nobody ever thinks about why Opera is doing this - it isn't because they love "the people" and want to ensure they get a good browser.
This is both a strawman and irrelevant. It's like arguing that when Opera calls the cops after someone robs their office no one thinks if they're doing it out of love of the people. Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean people think they are and it doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce either antitrust laws or theft laws because of it. Sometimes when people act in their own best interests (like reporting a theft of their property) the laws can work in the best interests of that company and society.
It's because they really want some more of that money.
Gee really? Corporations want money? Thanks for the inside info genius.
...if you can't defeat your competitors in the open market, then get government to handicap them for you.
Yeah, I also get the government to handicap the mafia for me by forcing them to obey the criminal law codes that apply to everyone.
But seriously, how the does EU "law" even work?
So let me be sure understand you. You don't know how the law works, but you though instead of learning you'd come to Slashdot and post about how stupid the laws you don't understand are? That's just brilliant.
I'm not even going to insult Hammurabi by calling them "laws." I'm going to henceforth refer to EU ruling as "Lord Fauntleroy's Whims".
Yeah those whimsical europeans copying american antitrust laws almost exactly. What nonsensical hilarity.
So lemme get this straight: They ruled in 2002 that MS had to decouple IE from Windows, and allow users not to have it as the default browser, yadda yadda yadda, all so other browser makers could "compete."
Umm correct assuming the "they" in your sentence is the US court system.
And I'm really sure that your average user, when confronted with an OS with *no* browser is really going to go comparison-shopping.
You think users would be involved, how cute. Guess what users generally never install Windows and the same magical fairies that install Windows on computers (OEMs) are probably going to put a browser on as well.
Anyway, so now, the commission has *further* decided that Microsoft can't even include IE at all, because Opera bitched about it?
No, the commission has decided that MS bundling Windows and IE seems to be illegal. This isn't terribly surprising since the US already convicted them of the same crime and so did several other countries. The EU has just convicted MS of other crimes regarding other antitrust abuses. The EU just notified Microsoft that they're going forward with the complaint and gave them a couple of months to respond before they go ahead with the prosecution.
Seriously, when does it end? When Opera's happy? What's next?
When MS stops breaking the law and changes their business model to a legal one. So far MS has been intentionally breaking the law and paying the fines and settlements under the assumption that the courts are weak and ineffective. The US proved them right since after MS very large campaign contributions all their legal problems magically went away there. It has come to the point where american companies like Sun take MS to court in the EU because they have no confidence in the US court system. Hopefully the EU will effectively punish MS to the point that they stop their illegal actions and level the playing field.
I don't know if you've noticed but Web technologies pretty much suck these days. Web pages still use half completed versions of decade old specific
So if MS sold computer hardware - say they release the Windows X PC next year, and it's widely touted as THE BEST system to run Windows on - then you'd be fine with them bundling whatever software they wanted.
Only provided they stop selling their OS to other companies as well. They can enter into the not monopolized computer system market if they want and bundle whatever they want (except other monopolized products), provided they get rid of their monopoly on selling desktop OS's either by leaving that market or by losing market share to others.
In fact, to get the BEST version of Windows, with all the features (eg. Windows Media Player, IE, backup software, etc), you'd have to buy their PC.
Nope. That would mean they are still selling their desktop OS to others and thus still have monopoly influence, which they are leveraging into the computer system market. That's illegal.
It's a fine line you're drawing. Be careful that you don't muss it up while you're hopping over it.
I'm not drawing any lines, just reiterating the markets as both economists and the courts have described them.
First, Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
Hmm, which seems more probable, that the US, EU, and several other courts, pretty much all economists, and my own understanding of the law are all incorrect in declaring MS a monopolist... or that RightSaidFred99 on a Web forum knows more about antitrust laws and monopolies than all of us. Let me ponder that and get back to you.
I know, you'll trot out the tired "but OEMs would add a browser!" argument. The fact is the existence or non-existence of OEMs is irrelevent[sic].
You know just because you say something doesn't make it true. OEMs are the primary customer for the product we are discussing and the most important element in defining the market legally. Its like going into a theft trial and claiming who owned the stolen materials does not matter.
People do also just buy the OS off the shelf.
But not enough to make up a relevant part of MS's market.
No. This is just a stupid argument by a loser company.
Yeah, just like the same stupid argument made by the US DoJ when they convicted MS of the very same thing and won the appeals. It's just like the stupid argument that was made several other courts around the world all of whom convicted MS. They're all so stupid compared to you huh?
The OEMs are free to include other browsers on their machines.
Sure they are and I'm free to drive down to the power plant and charge up hundreds of batteries every day then plug them in to my house to avoid the local electrical power distribution monopoly. That doesn't make it any less of a monopoly or make any antitrust actions they take have less of an affect upon me.
You really need to educate yourself before arguing about a topic. Used economics textbooks are dirt cheap and antitrust law hasn't changed in a century. Buy one. Read it.
Factually incorrect. Can you point us to the clause in the T & C? You don't think Opera would have mentioned it in their complaint?
Generally MS's contracts are unavailable and un-distributable because they are classified as trade secrets. The last time we had a court ordered discovery, however, there were plenty of illegal and antitrust issue clauses in them. It's one of the reasons MS has been settling many of these lawsuits instead of fighting them.
You're correct, however, in that there is to my knowledge no publicly available proof that such a clause is currently in those contracts.
2. Web browsers and operating systems are separate markets.
No, they're not. Never have been.
Yeah all those people that paid money for Opera or Omniweb were suffering from a mass delusion. It's all part of an Illuminati conspiracy you see, including drugs in the water that made people think they were getting a Netscape CD with their hardware purchase when really it was a flying saucer for really small aliens.
drsmithy, do you ever stop making up crap to try to explain away anything unethical or illegal MS has ever done?