When you don't get a copy of ie or firefox or any other browser with your computer...
Why wouldn't you get a browser with your computer? MS doesn't bundle a mouse with Windows but you get one with your computer. MS doesn't bundle a PDF reader with their Windows, but most computers come with that too. Computers != Windows.
Does this apply to Apple bundling Safari with Mac and iPhone, too?
Does Apple have a monopoly on desktop computer systems or smartphones?
I mean I'm all for kicking MS while they're down as much as the next guy, but if the legal ruling is that bundling in-house browsers is bad practice, shouldn't that effect both big players?
It would, were that the ruling... but it isn't. The law says you can't bundle a product from a separate, pre-existing market with a product from a monopolized market. Since Apple does not have a monopoly on any of the products you bring up, it effects none of them. There is concern they might have monopoly influence in the portable digital music player market, in which case it will effect them with regards to tying iPods to iTunes and the iTunes store and their DRM, but it seems likely they do not have enough influence in the european market for that to be a real issue yet.
he way I see it - MS are, to some extent, justified in arguing IE is a component of the OS.
But whether it is or not is not relevant. Component or not, antitrust law is about undermining markets. What matters is if a component is a separate, preexisting market at the time of MS's bundling.
What's to stop developers developing a package, calling it a stand-alone product, declaring MS are in violation of anti-trust...
Because the law specifies it has to have been a separate market at the time of the bundling.
This is applicable to linux, not just MS.
It's applicable to a distro of Linux if Linux sold by one company ever reaches ~70% market share, but even then the nature of Linux's license makes it very difficult to use in undermining other markets.
At some point we have to draw the line
The lines were drawn a hundred years ago and have been being enforced since then. Maybe people here on Slashdot just need to learn what those lines are.
What about cars - might we see dunlop suggesting mercedes ships it's cars without wheels so that drivers can choose the sort of rubber tyre they want?
Sure right after Mercedes stops shipping their cars with tires, gains a monopoly on selling cars, then starts shipping them with tires again. I know I'm concerned this is going to happen any day now. We'd better get rid of these laws quickly!
If Microsoft has to unbundle their browser, then EVERY operating system should be required to unbundle browsers and applications as well.
If Albert Fish has to spend years in prison, then EVERY person who cut up meat with a cleaver should be required to spend years in prison as well.
After all, just because Fish was cutting up live children instead of beef steaks is unimportant just as the fact that MS bundled a browser with their monopolized OS and undermined the market is unimportant. We all now it is the act that counts, not the act in context of its effect.
Just as I don't support the RIAA trying to litigate its way to market share, I'm not going to support Mozilla/Opera trying to sue IE into oblivion...
No one is being sued. This is a criminal case being prosecuted by the EU. Opera reported the crime. Mozilla asked the court if they could comment on it since they have expert knowledge of the market.
IE is a crappy program and with half a business plan and some patience they should prevail without firing the lawyer cannons.
It's interesting how pretty much every government around the world passed laws to make actions like MS's illegal because trusts proved just the opposite over and over again. But I'm sure you know more about economics than, well all the economists.
Yes -- I've always found it interesting that no one complains that Safari is required on Macs these days. Bundling is in the eye of the beholder, I guess
That's because we have a clue and know that antitrust law does not make bundling in general illegal. Did you ever think if you don't understand why people complain about one and not the other it might be because one is illegal (with good reason) while the other is not? Did you ever consider picking up a book or doing a Web search to find out?
How do you sue a piece of software? What does suing have to do with MS being prosecuted for breaking the law?
This isn't a browser monopoly.
FAIL! No one claimed it is. Please go find out what the hell antitrust law is then read up on this case and come back with a moderately educated opinion.
Oh lord, let's hope there are similar law suites against Safari in MacOS, Iceweasel in Debian, Firefox in RedHat, etc. etc. etc.
Why, what do you think they have a monopoly on Web browsers or desktop OS's? Do you even know what MS is about to be convicted of? You comment is like saying the police should arrest olympic marksmen because someone else was arrested for shooting their wife with a shotgun. If you think shooting a firearm or bundling two products in the general case is illegal, it makes sense... but of course neither is.
Just where is the dividing line between package choice in putting together a desktop environment for a user and a monopoly?
When you gain monopoly influence on a market (usually about 70%) you are then banned from bundling products from separate preexisting markets. It's clear cut and most companies go well out of their way to avoid any chance of violating said laws if they have dominance in a market.
This whole thing is bollocks to me.
So you thought you'd come here and tell us your opinions instead of spending five minutes with a book or wikipedia and figuring it out?
I see. Did you think Apple, Canonical, or Mozilla had a monopoly on one of those markets and which one? Or is it just that you have no idea what you're talking about or what MS is about to be convicted of?
I wrote a calculator application, does this mean that I can go after Microsoft too? Or how about my custom Explorer.exe?
Did you start marketing it before or after MS gained a monopoly and bundled their version of it?
The fact that you were modded flame for this is part of the reason I don't frequent/. as much anymore.
He was modded flamebait for his comment because he repeatedly cites "facts" which are incorrect, like that the EU required MS to release code, which they did not. He was also probably modded down because he clearly has no idea what antitrust law is or how it applies in this case.
I'm certainly no Microsoft apologist, but in this case I have to take their side.
I have no problem with people taking their side. My problem is that if you don't see the problem with the post you're responding to you're probably just as clueless and misinformed as he is. I wish people would get their facts straight and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of what's going on before they insist on burdening us with their opinions.
The thing I don't get is that it's a web browser. It really is an OS commodity today.
Why would antitrust law not apply to commodities? It always has in the past.
Lets move on to actual real software where there's a difference that people really can see.
A lot of us would like to move. Move on from Web technologies of decades past. Sadly one monopolist has illegally pushed their browser on the masses then refused to keep pace with technology and implemented broken versions resulting in a Web that is very broken and trying to use really old technologies with weird hacks in order to be innovative.
No, you for sure don't get it. Mozilla is not suing MS. Opera is the one. Mozilla was just added as an 'interested third party', not as a litigant.
Actually, you're a little off too. No one is suing anyone. Opera filed a criminal complaint, not a lawsuit. Mozilla is an interested third party in the prosecution. There is no litigant, just prosecutors, the defendant, and victims.
The military doesn't create wealth. Programmers, machinists, cooks, carpenters, electricians, etc create wealth. Most of our poor are NOT in the military.
True, the military does not create wealth. It does, however, redistribute it, mostly from the middle class to the very poor. Most soldiers come from the very poor lower class and it is one of the ways they still have some upward mobility and hope of going to college. Reducing the number of soldiers we support can and does reduce the amount of wealth available to the poorest parts of our society and will worsen the economic crisis. My point is, simply reducing government spending on the military is not beneficial unless that spending is replaced with programs that create at least as many jobs and opportunities for the poor. Repurposing some of the military to other tasks is also an option.
Old earth creationists are a much larger group. They accept that the earth has been around a long time and when dinosaurs existed. They accept heliocentrism
Even the Catholic Church accepts that, and it has for hundreds of years. What are you talking about?
Religion is a hobby of mine. This entails reading some of the more fundamentalist christian Web sites. A significant number of fundamentalist christians claim to be literalists. They claim the earth is 6000, years old and that the sun revolves around the earth. A few rare ducks still insist the earth is flat. Believe it or not (it surprised me) the catholics are in no way the most scientifically backwards and christian sect.
My car... came with a radio installed. I'm going to sue Ford for their monopoly on car stereos.
You're an idiot. MS has a monopoly on desktop OS's. They bundle a Web browser with that. Ford does not have a monopoly on cars and doesn't even make car stereos, let alone have a monopoly on them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Imagine one company did gain a monopoly on car stereos and basically every car company in the world put them in their cars. Then that car stereo makers started requiring car makers to buy a bundle of both car stereo and heating and cooling system instead of just the stereo. The car makers, facing a monopoly had to comply and instead of having a the best heater and AC at a given price point, everyone ended up with a substandard one. You don't see the issue?
Are they talking about getting rid of the blue E and bundling other browsers or are they actually talking about stripping IE out of the OS completely?
We don't know. No comments from either the EU, Mozilla, or Opera that I have seen to date speak to the likely remedy. MS made a comment that they thought they might be required to include other browsers, but that's just speculation on their part.
But, if they actually strip IE from the whole system and remove the HTML Application functionality, it would cut out a portion of the OS that's (at least somewhat) useful that isn't really connected to the issue at hand.
That seems unlikely, but if that were to be done, they would certainly provide a mechanism whereby the installed browser provided core HTML functionality via an API as well. It would take some re-architecting to make that library a plugin but it is certainly doable.
It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for Mozilla to join the suit against MS while at the same time saying they don't want any of the viable fixes to be applied.
What "viable fixes" are you talking about? Did you read the same article as the rest of us?
This is basically asking for a handout that is only going to see the lawyers win in the end.
Mozilla has "interested third party" status, they don't get part of reparations in this case. They just get to make comments to the courts about reparations. How is that a handout?
MS makes money because they make a product that for all its problems is easily usable (apparently) by 90% of the world.
So are you objecting to antitrust law in general or in this specific case? You are being vague. Do you think if I have a monopoly on something I should be able to use that to drive people who have better products than I do out of a different market, provided my product is "good enough to be usable" even if it isn't as good as the competition?
For all that we complain here, telling a software company what they need to include in their program in order to sell it does not sound too good to me--I can see telling a company, "don't include viruses" but telling a company it can't include something that is foundational to the system's operation (for most people) is not just 'antitrust' enforcement, it's crippling a legitimate (however much disliked) business.
Do you even understand antitrust law or this case? Telephone handsets are pretty critical to the telephone system business. Before the antitrust laws were enforced people were paying thousands of dollars over their lifetime to rent a rotary dial phone available only in black with no call waiting, answering machine, caller ID, or even speed dial. It's the same law applied in the same way that is why you can buy a functional home phone with good features for a few bucks. If you're arguing we need to change the law, I hope you have good reason. If you're arguing it does not apply to MS in this case, you'd beetter have a good reason. I'm all ears. Enlighten me.
I'm sorry, mod me as a troll if you like, but this whole thing reeks of Government putting its nose where it doesn't belong.
Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing. Seriously, I hope you're an astroturfer, instead of just an honest someone they've managed to completely mislead.
The EU tried them a while ago for anti-competitive practices, fined them, and forced them to release a bunch of code.
Wrong. It forced them to document APIs for communication between two of their products so people making the one that was not Windows on the desktop could compete. They even let them charge for said documentation.
Microsoft complied. The EU came back again and said it wasn't enough, fined them again, and forced them to release more.
Actually, MS refused to comply, which is why the EU continued to fine them until they did comply, that is fully document the APIs so others could compete. MS just tried to pull a fast one by releasing incomplete and incorrect APIs and hoping the EU would not call them on it.
Then you've got the entire EU saying "We recommend you don't use Windows. Our government isn't going to use Windows, either." which is all well and good, they certainly have that liberty.
Yeah, governments often recommend against doing business with repeat offender criminals, but the EU never said they would not use MS, they are just not a preferred vendor.
Now you've got them suing based on the fact that MS packages a damn browser with their operating system (the one thing 99.99% of people buy computers for) and its anti-trust, too.
Wow, you never get tired of being wrong do you? There is no lawsuit. Opera reported a crime. They did not file a lawsuit. The crime they reported was antitrust abuse. The fact that the antitrust abuse happens by way of bundling does not imply bundling is illegal in the general case. Your argument is like claiming someone being charged with murder for shooting someone should be let go, because lots of hunters and target shooters fire guns as well and are not arrested. You're fundamentally failing to comprehend either the crime or the reason for the law and basically being an embarrassment to people who bother to learn about something before spouting off about it.
Geez, can you leave them alone already?
Geez, can't they stop committing crimes already? They only have a million lawyers.
If people want firefox, they can download firefox or opera or anything.
Irrelevant. It does not mitigate the antitrust abuse.
If they don't want Windows, there's plenty of free alternatives.
Irrelevant, MS is not charged with having a monopoly. Having a monopoly is legal.
Fine, you think their products suck. Don't use them.
For OEMs the option of not buying Windows to pre-install on computers they sell is not an option. It sucks, but it isn't illegal. Making them take IE too is illegal. Even if I never use Windows or IE, they're still costing me money when I do Web development. They're costing Opera and Mozilla money every day as well, and they're doing so by breaking the law. If I were breaking the law and costing you money would your ignoring that law (the one everyone else has to obey) seem like a reasonable option to you, just because other people have choices? How does that help you?
But don't hold a gun to their heads and tell them they can't sell a certain product.
But here's the thing. They can make and sell IE all they want. They can fricking bundle it with MS brand mice. They just can't legally bundle it with Windows and they've been breaking that law and counting on it to make them more money than it c
just the other day they (Mozilla) said that bundling does not boost adoption.... now this. was that a decoy or the man was indeed a bozo?
Yesterday the personal comments of one Firefox developer/architect were made into a Slashdot story. The comments of one of the actual executives, which said basically the opposite, were ignored. I can see why one might get the wrong idea, but you have to pay attention to the context. Sure, the guy was a bozo, but most of us knew that yesterday.
Well, last I'd heard, Opera was asking for their product to be bundled with Windows, in addition to IE.
Really? Where did you hear that? Last I heard Opera complained about the abuse and asked the EU to specifically address broken standards. As far as I know they have asked for no specific remedy. A lot of pundits and MS themselves have made comments about forcing MS to bundle Opera as well, but as far as I've heard neither Opera nor the EU have proposed any such thing. Do you have a source?
How is helping broadband going to stimulate the economy?
The idea is to invest funds in industries that will create benefit to society, hire people to do work, and lead to more long term jobs than other industries which are more profitable in the short term. Like other infrastructure, improving internet access opens up lots of opportunity for new industries like good video rental over broadband, video telephony, and anything else based upon it. Spending money improving internet access gets more jobs than spending money digging ditches because in addition to the people hired to build it, you're opening up more customers for companies like NetFlix or Amazon.
The way to stimulate the economy is to get the banks lending again and get consumers spending again.
No, that's how you keep the economy from spiraling downward into nothingness.
Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class does the latter, but I have no idea how to get the banks lending.
Cutting taxes on the lower end is good for the economy but only if it doesn't come by cutting government programs that actually help people financially or cause jobs to be lost. So if you cut taxes on the poor you can eliminate some small amount of government spending without hurting the economy, but very little. Every tax dollar not going to the military reduces the amount given in salary to soldiers (the poor) and to industries they hire to provide technologies and services. The same is true in most industries.
Because of this, we need to reverse the policies of trickle down economics (which failed miserably as most competent economists predicted) and increase taxes on the very small ultra wealthy portion of society. Then, we need to move that wealth to the bottom end via socialist programs that create jobs and where a small investment either creates a disproportionate number of jobs or saves a disproportionate amount of wealth from being wasted.
For many long years our tax policies have basically sucked money away from society as a whole and funneled it to the very wealthy. The wealth disparity caused banks to desperately lend to people with no wealth and no realistic prospect of wealth. Now it has come to a head. You say you don't know how to get banks lending. The solution is clear, even if it is not easy. We need to create jobs for the bottom half of the financial pool and we need to have policies that allow them to build wealth. We need to get them building equity in homes paid for with steady jobs. We need them to not be at serious risk of personal bankruptcy and defaulting on loans because they get sick (the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy). We need these jobs and these social safety nets and we need to pay for them without mortgaging that same portion of society's financial future, which means greatly increased taxes on the very wealthy. Bill Gates should be paying a larger percentage of his income to taxes than I do, not less.
The problem with all this is, of course, lack of understanding of this issue among voters and the fact that the people actually making the decisions and paying for election campaigns constitute the extreme rich who need to pay more if we're to fix this mess. It is super easy to get sidetracked along the way and it absolutely will get sidetracked if people don't understand it and make it clear they will vote based upon that issue.
I do think that the banks need to be reregulated, and heavily. They have shown themselves to be thieves and need to be kept on a short leash.
The banks were complicit in what has happened, but they are just a small symptom. They delayed the recession and made it worse in the process, but they certainly were not the main cause.
Why are CEOs getting "performance bonuses" when they're doing a piss-poor job?
Because the CEOs have more power than the people because we allow corporations to lobby and make campaign contri
Slashdot Mirror
When you don't get a copy of ie or firefox or any other browser with your computer...
Why wouldn't you get a browser with your computer? MS doesn't bundle a mouse with Windows but you get one with your computer. MS doesn't bundle a PDF reader with their Windows, but most computers come with that too. Computers != Windows.
Does this apply to Apple bundling Safari with Mac and iPhone, too?
Does Apple have a monopoly on desktop computer systems or smartphones?
I mean I'm all for kicking MS while they're down as much as the next guy, but if the legal ruling is that bundling in-house browsers is bad practice, shouldn't that effect both big players?
It would, were that the ruling... but it isn't. The law says you can't bundle a product from a separate, pre-existing market with a product from a monopolized market. Since Apple does not have a monopoly on any of the products you bring up, it effects none of them. There is concern they might have monopoly influence in the portable digital music player market, in which case it will effect them with regards to tying iPods to iTunes and the iTunes store and their DRM, but it seems likely they do not have enough influence in the european market for that to be a real issue yet.
Package Management sounds like a lawsuit from Macrovision/Acresso/InstallShield/Whatever-they're-called-today just waiting to happen.
Yeah, MS could never afford to buy them to avoid the problem.
he way I see it - MS are, to some extent, justified in arguing IE is a component of the OS.
But whether it is or not is not relevant. Component or not, antitrust law is about undermining markets. What matters is if a component is a separate, preexisting market at the time of MS's bundling.
What's to stop developers developing a package, calling it a stand-alone product, declaring MS are in violation of anti-trust...
Because the law specifies it has to have been a separate market at the time of the bundling.
This is applicable to linux, not just MS.
It's applicable to a distro of Linux if Linux sold by one company ever reaches ~70% market share, but even then the nature of Linux's license makes it very difficult to use in undermining other markets.
At some point we have to draw the line
The lines were drawn a hundred years ago and have been being enforced since then. Maybe people here on Slashdot just need to learn what those lines are.
What about cars - might we see dunlop suggesting mercedes ships it's cars without wheels so that drivers can choose the sort of rubber tyre they want?
Sure right after Mercedes stops shipping their cars with tires, gains a monopoly on selling cars, then starts shipping them with tires again. I know I'm concerned this is going to happen any day now. We'd better get rid of these laws quickly!
If Microsoft has to unbundle their browser, then EVERY operating system should be required to unbundle browsers and applications as well.
If Albert Fish has to spend years in prison, then EVERY person who cut up meat with a cleaver should be required to spend years in prison as well.
After all, just because Fish was cutting up live children instead of beef steaks is unimportant just as the fact that MS bundled a browser with their monopolized OS and undermined the market is unimportant. We all now it is the act that counts, not the act in context of its effect.
Just as I don't support the RIAA trying to litigate its way to market share, I'm not going to support Mozilla/Opera trying to sue IE into oblivion...
No one is being sued. This is a criminal case being prosecuted by the EU. Opera reported the crime. Mozilla asked the court if they could comment on it since they have expert knowledge of the market.
IE is a crappy program and with half a business plan and some patience they should prevail without firing the lawyer cannons.
It's interesting how pretty much every government around the world passed laws to make actions like MS's illegal because trusts proved just the opposite over and over again. But I'm sure you know more about economics than, well all the economists.
Yes -- I've always found it interesting that no one complains that Safari is required on Macs these days. Bundling is in the eye of the beholder, I guess
That's because we have a clue and know that antitrust law does not make bundling in general illegal. Did you ever think if you don't understand why people complain about one and not the other it might be because one is illegal (with good reason) while the other is not? Did you ever consider picking up a book or doing a Web search to find out?
Let's all sue every OS
How do you sue a piece of software? What does suing have to do with MS being prosecuted for breaking the law?
This isn't a browser monopoly.
FAIL! No one claimed it is. Please go find out what the hell antitrust law is then read up on this case and come back with a moderately educated opinion.
Oh lord, let's hope there are similar law suites against Safari in MacOS, Iceweasel in Debian, Firefox in RedHat, etc. etc. etc.
Why, what do you think they have a monopoly on Web browsers or desktop OS's? Do you even know what MS is about to be convicted of? You comment is like saying the police should arrest olympic marksmen because someone else was arrested for shooting their wife with a shotgun. If you think shooting a firearm or bundling two products in the general case is illegal, it makes sense... but of course neither is.
Just where is the dividing line between package choice in putting together a desktop environment for a user and a monopoly?
When you gain monopoly influence on a market (usually about 70%) you are then banned from bundling products from separate preexisting markets. It's clear cut and most companies go well out of their way to avoid any chance of violating said laws if they have dominance in a market.
This whole thing is bollocks to me.
So you thought you'd come here and tell us your opinions instead of spending five minutes with a book or wikipedia and figuring it out?
Apple bundles Safari, Ubuntu bundles Firefox
I see. Did you think Apple, Canonical, or Mozilla had a monopoly on one of those markets and which one? Or is it just that you have no idea what you're talking about or what MS is about to be convicted of?
I wrote a calculator application, does this mean that I can go after Microsoft too? Or how about my custom Explorer.exe?
Did you start marketing it before or after MS gained a monopoly and bundled their version of it?
The fact that you were modded flame for this is part of the reason I don't frequent /. as much anymore.
He was modded flamebait for his comment because he repeatedly cites "facts" which are incorrect, like that the EU required MS to release code, which they did not. He was also probably modded down because he clearly has no idea what antitrust law is or how it applies in this case.
I'm certainly no Microsoft apologist, but in this case I have to take their side.
I have no problem with people taking their side. My problem is that if you don't see the problem with the post you're responding to you're probably just as clueless and misinformed as he is. I wish people would get their facts straight and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of what's going on before they insist on burdening us with their opinions.
The thing I don't get is that it's a web browser. It really is an OS commodity today.
Why would antitrust law not apply to commodities? It always has in the past.
Lets move on to actual real software where there's a difference that people really can see.
A lot of us would like to move. Move on from Web technologies of decades past. Sadly one monopolist has illegally pushed their browser on the masses then refused to keep pace with technology and implemented broken versions resulting in a Web that is very broken and trying to use really old technologies with weird hacks in order to be innovative.
No, you for sure don't get it. Mozilla is not suing MS. Opera is the one. Mozilla was just added as an 'interested third party', not as a litigant.
Actually, you're a little off too. No one is suing anyone. Opera filed a criminal complaint, not a lawsuit. Mozilla is an interested third party in the prosecution. There is no litigant, just prosecutors, the defendant, and victims.
The military doesn't create wealth. Programmers, machinists, cooks, carpenters, electricians, etc create wealth. Most of our poor are NOT in the military.
True, the military does not create wealth. It does, however, redistribute it, mostly from the middle class to the very poor. Most soldiers come from the very poor lower class and it is one of the ways they still have some upward mobility and hope of going to college. Reducing the number of soldiers we support can and does reduce the amount of wealth available to the poorest parts of our society and will worsen the economic crisis. My point is, simply reducing government spending on the military is not beneficial unless that spending is replaced with programs that create at least as many jobs and opportunities for the poor. Repurposing some of the military to other tasks is also an option.
Old earth creationists are a much larger group. They accept that the earth has been around a long time and when dinosaurs existed. They accept heliocentrism
Even the Catholic Church accepts that, and it has for hundreds of years. What are you talking about?
Religion is a hobby of mine. This entails reading some of the more fundamentalist christian Web sites. A significant number of fundamentalist christians claim to be literalists. They claim the earth is 6000, years old and that the sun revolves around the earth. A few rare ducks still insist the earth is flat. Believe it or not (it surprised me) the catholics are in no way the most scientifically backwards and christian sect.
My car... came with a radio installed. I'm going to sue Ford for their monopoly on car stereos.
You're an idiot. MS has a monopoly on desktop OS's. They bundle a Web browser with that. Ford does not have a monopoly on cars and doesn't even make car stereos, let alone have a monopoly on them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Imagine one company did gain a monopoly on car stereos and basically every car company in the world put them in their cars. Then that car stereo makers started requiring car makers to buy a bundle of both car stereo and heating and cooling system instead of just the stereo. The car makers, facing a monopoly had to comply and instead of having a the best heater and AC at a given price point, everyone ended up with a substandard one. You don't see the issue?
This suit makes zero sense. If you're buying a PC with a Windows OS in it, your default internet browsing option is going to be IE.
The fact that MS is enforcing that as the case is a crime. It's called antitrust abuse, look it up.
Are they talking about getting rid of the blue E and bundling other browsers or are they actually talking about stripping IE out of the OS completely?
We don't know. No comments from either the EU, Mozilla, or Opera that I have seen to date speak to the likely remedy. MS made a comment that they thought they might be required to include other browsers, but that's just speculation on their part.
But, if they actually strip IE from the whole system and remove the HTML Application functionality, it would cut out a portion of the OS that's (at least somewhat) useful that isn't really connected to the issue at hand.
That seems unlikely, but if that were to be done, they would certainly provide a mechanism whereby the installed browser provided core HTML functionality via an API as well. It would take some re-architecting to make that library a plugin but it is certainly doable.
It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for Mozilla to join the suit against MS while at the same time saying they don't want any of the viable fixes to be applied.
What "viable fixes" are you talking about? Did you read the same article as the rest of us?
This is basically asking for a handout that is only going to see the lawyers win in the end.
Mozilla has "interested third party" status, they don't get part of reparations in this case. They just get to make comments to the courts about reparations. How is that a handout?
MS makes money because they make a product that for all its problems is easily usable (apparently) by 90% of the world.
So are you objecting to antitrust law in general or in this specific case? You are being vague. Do you think if I have a monopoly on something I should be able to use that to drive people who have better products than I do out of a different market, provided my product is "good enough to be usable" even if it isn't as good as the competition?
For all that we complain here, telling a software company what they need to include in their program in order to sell it does not sound too good to me--I can see telling a company, "don't include viruses" but telling a company it can't include something that is foundational to the system's operation (for most people) is not just 'antitrust' enforcement, it's crippling a legitimate (however much disliked) business.
Do you even understand antitrust law or this case? Telephone handsets are pretty critical to the telephone system business. Before the antitrust laws were enforced people were paying thousands of dollars over their lifetime to rent a rotary dial phone available only in black with no call waiting, answering machine, caller ID, or even speed dial. It's the same law applied in the same way that is why you can buy a functional home phone with good features for a few bucks. If you're arguing we need to change the law, I hope you have good reason. If you're arguing it does not apply to MS in this case, you'd beetter have a good reason. I'm all ears. Enlighten me.
How can the only reply be redundant?
I'm sorry, mod me as a troll if you like, but this whole thing reeks of Government putting its nose where it doesn't belong.
Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing. Seriously, I hope you're an astroturfer, instead of just an honest someone they've managed to completely mislead.
The EU tried them a while ago for anti-competitive practices, fined them, and forced them to release a bunch of code.
Wrong. It forced them to document APIs for communication between two of their products so people making the one that was not Windows on the desktop could compete. They even let them charge for said documentation.
Microsoft complied. The EU came back again and said it wasn't enough, fined them again, and forced them to release more.
Actually, MS refused to comply, which is why the EU continued to fine them until they did comply, that is fully document the APIs so others could compete. MS just tried to pull a fast one by releasing incomplete and incorrect APIs and hoping the EU would not call them on it.
Then you've got the entire EU saying "We recommend you don't use Windows. Our government isn't going to use Windows, either." which is all well and good, they certainly have that liberty.
Yeah, governments often recommend against doing business with repeat offender criminals, but the EU never said they would not use MS, they are just not a preferred vendor.
Now you've got them suing based on the fact that MS packages a damn browser with their operating system (the one thing 99.99% of people buy computers for) and its anti-trust, too.
Wow, you never get tired of being wrong do you? There is no lawsuit. Opera reported a crime. They did not file a lawsuit. The crime they reported was antitrust abuse. The fact that the antitrust abuse happens by way of bundling does not imply bundling is illegal in the general case. Your argument is like claiming someone being charged with murder for shooting someone should be let go, because lots of hunters and target shooters fire guns as well and are not arrested. You're fundamentally failing to comprehend either the crime or the reason for the law and basically being an embarrassment to people who bother to learn about something before spouting off about it.
Geez, can you leave them alone already?
Geez, can't they stop committing crimes already? They only have a million lawyers.
If people want firefox, they can download firefox or opera or anything.
Irrelevant. It does not mitigate the antitrust abuse.
If they don't want Windows, there's plenty of free alternatives.
Irrelevant, MS is not charged with having a monopoly. Having a monopoly is legal.
Fine, you think their products suck. Don't use them.
For OEMs the option of not buying Windows to pre-install on computers they sell is not an option. It sucks, but it isn't illegal. Making them take IE too is illegal. Even if I never use Windows or IE, they're still costing me money when I do Web development. They're costing Opera and Mozilla money every day as well, and they're doing so by breaking the law. If I were breaking the law and costing you money would your ignoring that law (the one everyone else has to obey) seem like a reasonable option to you, just because other people have choices? How does that help you?
But don't hold a gun to their heads and tell them they can't sell a certain product.
But here's the thing. They can make and sell IE all they want. They can fricking bundle it with MS brand mice. They just can't legally bundle it with Windows and they've been breaking that law and counting on it to make them more money than it c
just the other day they (Mozilla) said that bundling does not boost adoption.... now this. was that a decoy or the man was indeed a bozo?
Yesterday the personal comments of one Firefox developer/architect were made into a Slashdot story. The comments of one of the actual executives, which said basically the opposite, were ignored. I can see why one might get the wrong idea, but you have to pay attention to the context. Sure, the guy was a bozo, but most of us knew that yesterday.
Well, last I'd heard, Opera was asking for their product to be bundled with Windows, in addition to IE.
Really? Where did you hear that? Last I heard Opera complained about the abuse and asked the EU to specifically address broken standards. As far as I know they have asked for no specific remedy. A lot of pundits and MS themselves have made comments about forcing MS to bundle Opera as well, but as far as I've heard neither Opera nor the EU have proposed any such thing. Do you have a source?
I see IE's bundling with Windows...
...without IE pre-installed on the box...
Bundling with Windows != bundling with the box
FAIL!
How is helping broadband going to stimulate the economy?
The idea is to invest funds in industries that will create benefit to society, hire people to do work, and lead to more long term jobs than other industries which are more profitable in the short term. Like other infrastructure, improving internet access opens up lots of opportunity for new industries like good video rental over broadband, video telephony, and anything else based upon it. Spending money improving internet access gets more jobs than spending money digging ditches because in addition to the people hired to build it, you're opening up more customers for companies like NetFlix or Amazon.
The way to stimulate the economy is to get the banks lending again and get consumers spending again.
No, that's how you keep the economy from spiraling downward into nothingness.
Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class does the latter, but I have no idea how to get the banks lending.
Cutting taxes on the lower end is good for the economy but only if it doesn't come by cutting government programs that actually help people financially or cause jobs to be lost. So if you cut taxes on the poor you can eliminate some small amount of government spending without hurting the economy, but very little. Every tax dollar not going to the military reduces the amount given in salary to soldiers (the poor) and to industries they hire to provide technologies and services. The same is true in most industries.
Because of this, we need to reverse the policies of trickle down economics (which failed miserably as most competent economists predicted) and increase taxes on the very small ultra wealthy portion of society. Then, we need to move that wealth to the bottom end via socialist programs that create jobs and where a small investment either creates a disproportionate number of jobs or saves a disproportionate amount of wealth from being wasted.
For many long years our tax policies have basically sucked money away from society as a whole and funneled it to the very wealthy. The wealth disparity caused banks to desperately lend to people with no wealth and no realistic prospect of wealth. Now it has come to a head. You say you don't know how to get banks lending. The solution is clear, even if it is not easy. We need to create jobs for the bottom half of the financial pool and we need to have policies that allow them to build wealth. We need to get them building equity in homes paid for with steady jobs. We need them to not be at serious risk of personal bankruptcy and defaulting on loans because they get sick (the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy). We need these jobs and these social safety nets and we need to pay for them without mortgaging that same portion of society's financial future, which means greatly increased taxes on the very wealthy. Bill Gates should be paying a larger percentage of his income to taxes than I do, not less.
The problem with all this is, of course, lack of understanding of this issue among voters and the fact that the people actually making the decisions and paying for election campaigns constitute the extreme rich who need to pay more if we're to fix this mess. It is super easy to get sidetracked along the way and it absolutely will get sidetracked if people don't understand it and make it clear they will vote based upon that issue.
I do think that the banks need to be reregulated, and heavily. They have shown themselves to be thieves and need to be kept on a short leash.
The banks were complicit in what has happened, but they are just a small symptom. They delayed the recession and made it worse in the process, but they certainly were not the main cause.
Why are CEOs getting "performance bonuses" when they're doing a piss-poor job?
Because the CEOs have more power than the people because we allow corporations to lobby and make campaign contri