backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 232 comment(s) - last by Danish1.. on May 30 at 2:05 AM
Microsoft tells the EU that they don't have to worry anymore, it will respect third parties' rights in Windows

The European Union and Microsoft have an icy relationship.  The EU's business regulatory arm, the European Commission, has fined Microsoft almost $2B USD over the past decade.  It is currently hounding Microsoft with allegations that it engaged in impropriety, bundling its own browser -- Internet Explorer -- with Windows.

A number of third party browsers -- including Opera, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari -- can run in Windows.  However, only Internet Explorer comes preinstalled with Windows.  The third-party developers claim that this bundling is anticompetitive. 

The EC had officially charged Microsoft with "[harming] competition between Web browsers, undermines product innovation, and ultimately [reducing] consumer choice" via bundling IE with Windows.  It had scheduled a closed doors oral hearing June 3-5 in Brussels, Belgium to allow Microsoft the chance to speak its piece.

Instead, Microsoft has rejected the opportunity to show, insisting it has nothing to worry about.  It says it has a sufficient option bundled with Windows 7 that will kill Internet Explorer 8, allowing other programs to be used exclusively (DailyTech verified this -- Windows 7 users go to "Uninstall a Program", then "Turn Windows features on or off" and finally check to remove IE 8).  However, this option does not automatically install competitors browsers, it is not presented in the installation of Windows 7 (or at first login), and third-party browsers are not bundled with Windows as the EU hoped.

Microsoft insists the snub of the EC's hearing is unintentional -- it says it can't make it because it has to attend the Zurich, Switzerland, meeting of the International Competition Network -- which it calls "the most important worldwide intergovernmental competition law meeting."  Dave Heiner, VP and deputy general counsel for Microsoft states, "As a result, it appears that many of the most influential commission and national competition officials with the greatest interest in our case will be in Zurich and so unable to attend our hearing in Brussels."

A request for reschedule by Microsoft was denied.  The EC said the availability of rooms in the courthouse made it impossible to reschedule.  Microsoft offered to find an alternate room, but the EC rejected this proposal.

It is unclear what Microsoft's fate will be when the EC makes it ruling.  Microsoft appears to be making some steps to allow users to opt out of Internet Explorer, but it still is far from embracing third-party browsers.  Furthermore, the EC has a variety of options -- it could fine Microsoft, it could force it (or OEMs) to bundle third party browsers with Windows, or it could even simply ask Microsoft to ship Internet Explorer as a separate install disc in Europe.

The EU has been adopting an aggressive stance on antitrust violations over the last couple years.  Just this month it fined chipmaker Intel a massive $1.45B USD, its largest fine to date, for engaging it anticompetitive payoffs and discounting.  Microsoft had previously been charged for browser bundling by the U.S. Justice Department, which it reached a settlement with in 2002, pledging to be more open with its interface and accepting of third-party browsers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I am sorry....
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/22/2009 9:46:54 AM , Rating: 5
But they build the OS, who the f cares if IE is bundled, it's not like people don't have a CHOICE TO GET ANOTHER BROWSER




RE: I am sorry....
By ElementZero on 5/22/2009 9:59:51 AM , Rating: 5
But...But....But! How will the EU ever get money to pay for other things if it doesn't fine American companies?!


RE: I am sorry....
By mwtaff on 5/22/2009 10:05:13 AM , Rating: 3
judging by the fact the Euro economy is as big as the United States then i don't think they need to fine US companies to generate their revenue, and i was waiting for the anti-euro bashing to start once this article was published, it gets tiring..


RE: I am sorry....
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/22/2009 10:11:55 AM , Rating: 5
The EU fully deserves bashing for the BS it has been pulling lately. And actually, it doesn't really get tiring bashing the EU. You should give it a try some time...


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/22/2009 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 3
The Windows monopoly is the most detrimental monopoly in society today. I admire the EU for having the guts to stand up to Micro$hit. The US coddles big corporations like the banks and auto companies.


RE: I am sorry....
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By erikejw on 5/22/2009 11:06:58 AM , Rating: 3
Why the Clinton pic?

Does it self insert itself when the heading contains ORAL?
I wonder if he uses Cuban cigars?


RE: I am sorry....
By mondo1234 on 5/22/2009 7:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why the Clinton pic?


My guess is that it is because the original MS Antitrust Lawsuit originated under Bill Clintons Administration.
Bush's administration made it go away.


RE: I am sorry....
By RW on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: I am sorry....
By tastyratz on 5/22/2009 10:47:11 AM , Rating: 4
Standing up to Microsoft and other big companies is good when you have a leg to stand on.

Example of a leg: Microsoft explicitly blocking the installation of third party web browsers.

This is not the case, therefore the European Union is in the WRONG whether or not Microsoft engages in any anti competitive practices outside of this case.

The legal system is intended to be just and unbiased, and favoritism is just as anti competitive as the accusations. Maybe its Karma that they milk this cash cow, but it doesn't make it right.


RE: I am sorry....
By oab on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By outlander on 5/22/2009 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 5
I would recommend researching US and EU Anti-trust laws before you make that comment. In US Anti-trust laws you have to prove your monopoly's action is causing material harm to the consumer for the government to rule against the company.

In the EU, if your competitors complain your perceived monopoly is harming them, even if the consumer might benefit from the monopoly, the government can rule against the alleged monopoly company citing harm to competition.

So in essence you have it backwards, in the US they protect the consumers, in EU they are protecting the companies.

-Regards


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By tigen on 5/23/2009 3:53:41 PM , Rating: 5
If it stops the monopolistic company using illegal anti-competitive market tactics, then it will benefit the consumer because competitors can compete more effectively. I think that's clearly the case with Intel.

For browsers it's not really clear if there is really a market there anymore, really. All the companies pushing free browsers (except Opera) seem to consider the browser as a strategic lever or feature for helping sell their other products or web services, not as a product itself on which to make money.

In the past MS has used IE to extend its monopoly into the web space, by encouraging lots of content that wouldn't work on anything except IE. The focus should be on preventing MS from bundling support for proprietary web content with their OS. Then bundling doesn't matter.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: I am sorry....
By eldakka on 5/24/2009 11:19:28 PM , Rating: 1
Your understanding conflicts with my understanding. But then, my understanding could be flawed ;).

As I understand it....

For your argument to be true, the discount would have to be a blanket "you buy x thousand, and you get a 10% discount, if you buy 3x you get a 15% discount, etc".

That is not what happened.

It would be set individually for each customer, and it would be a % amount of their total CPU sales.

E.g.
Medium sized company fred sells 100,000 CPUs a year. Intel says to them, if you ship 65% of your total sales as Intel CPUs, we'll give you a 15% rebate. If you ship 85% of yout total sales as Intel CPUs we'll give you a 25% rebate.

To a large company, Bob, that sells say 1,000,000 CPUS, they give them the same conditions.

So, company fred gets a 15% discount for selling 65000+ CPUs, and a 25% discount for selling 85,000+ CPUs.

Company Bob gets a 15% discount for selling 650,000 CPUs, and 25% for selling 850,000 CPUs.

If it was purely volume, then anyone who bought 65,000 CPUs would get a 15% discount, and anyone who bought 85,000 CPUs would get a 25% discount.

However, company Bob won't get the 15% discount if it buys 65,000 CPUs, it has to buy 650,000 before it gets it.

Also, this % target did vary between companies. Usually at a point where Intel judged it would make it difficult for the company to justify producing a machine based on a competitors CPU.

For example, if for company fred, for them to justify the cost of designing a system they'd have to sell 25,000 of those machines to start making a profit, intel would set the % for a rebate at 76%, i.e. 76,000 units of their total sales of 100,000, therefore fred wouldn't be able to sell it's 25,000 units of the competitiors system (if they wished to get the Intel rebate) to make it worthwhile designing such a system. So they wouldn't bother making the competitors system at all.

And note that these were usually rebates, not discounts. So you would have to pay the full price (although most of these companies would have a credit with Intel and pay later for shipments now) for those 65,000 and 85,000 or whatever the units, then you'd get a refund at the end of the year.


RE: I am sorry....
By Sazar on 5/22/2009 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the EU will ask Mozilla, Google and Apple to bundle the Windows operating system with their browsers.

Quid pro quo no? I mean, if Microsoft has to bundle 3'rd party applications, it is only fair to force the 3'rd party applications to bundle Microsoft's products too.

And yes, this post is an attempt to show how stupid this ruling by the EU is.


RE: I am sorry....
By Solandri on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By Targon on 5/23/2009 10:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
And, how is a monopoly in the OS area applicable here? If Firefox or another browser is better, there is NOTHING stopping the customer from removing IE from the machine going forward. If Apple can bundle Safari and ONLY Safari with MacOS, then Microsoft should have the option to only bundle IE with a machine, as long as there is an option to remove it from the system.

While many people reading this can use a command line FTP client to download the browser of their choice, the general public would not have this knowledge or ability. As a result, to support the ability of the consumer to install their desired browser, no matter what it is, there MUST be a web browser available to allow the average consumer to do the download. If a tool is provided to download all of the third party browsers out there, and a web/ftp server is down for one of these other browsers, Microsoft would be on the hook to support these people.

So, if Microsoft will be forced to support the download of third party products, then Microsoft should also be able to charge money to third party companies for support costs for their products. Can you picture Apple paying Microsoft for having Microsoft assist in downloading Safari?


RE: I am sorry....
By eldakka on 5/24/2009 11:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And, how is a monopoly in the OS area applicable here?


Because it is also illegal to leverage a monopoly you have in one market (e.g. PC Operating Systems) to try and make a monopoly in another market (e.g. browsers).


RE: I am sorry....
By tigen on 5/23/2009 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
"I wonder if the EU will ask Mozilla, Google and Apple to bundle the Windows operating system with their browsers."

Of course not. Mozilla, Google, and Apple don't have monopoly power in browsers.


RE: I am sorry....
By Yawgm0th on 5/23/2009 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 1
Neither does Microsoft...


RE: I am sorry....
By tigen on 5/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/22/2009 2:58:23 PM , Rating: 3
To anyone who believes that IE is being forced to be used...

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a...

Firefox currently holds 47.1% of browsers.

Sorry buddy, EU, anyone else who believes that IE = MS domineering the market with bundled software. So much for anti-competitive moves.


RE: I am sorry....
By Morphine06 on 5/22/2009 6:16:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.


Direct quote from your link at w3schools...


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/22/2009 6:38:47 PM , Rating: 1
EEEeeehhhh, semantics :D

My point still stands, although the data used to support it was not necessarily looked at worth a damn... by me... And to reiterate my point so I don't look like so much of an ass, many people who know much about computers (thus, anyone who would care about which browser they use in the first place) are moving toward non Internet Exploder browsers, such as Firefox. It is very easy to switch... there is no anti-competitive act or sentiment by MS, just a bundling of services.

On a different note though, I am wondering if people would complain if they bundled Office in their OSs (for "free" -- quotations because there is no such thing as a free lunch) as an anti-competitive act... Isn't it just combining services that are very much essential to any student, and in many professions?


RE: I am sorry....
By eldakka on 5/24/2009 11:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox currently holds 47.1% of browsers.


Most anti-trust litigation takes many years to be resolved. This litigation started more than 4 years ago. So the current market share is irrelevant, it's what the situation was like when the process began.

Otherwise, it'd be like saying "when this murder trial started 8 years ago, my client was a right arsehole, but now he is an upstanding citizen and he hasn't killed anyone in at least the last 3 years, so we should stop the litigation and let him go because now he is a good bloke".


RE: I am sorry....
By Targon on 5/23/2009 10:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
While there was a good reason to bash Microsoft for including IE back in the days of the Netscape vs. Microsoft battles, bashing Microsoft just for the sake of bashing Microsoft without any reasoning behind it does nothing but make you look like a "me too" type of person. Yes, Microsoft has done some pretty scummy things, but do you honestly think that the public at large has the ability to download or install a different web browser without IE being on the machine in the first place?

It makes NO sense for Microsoft to want to pre-bundle Firefox, Safari, Opera, or anything else since those products are NOT made or supported by Microsoft. The moment ANYTHING comes with Microsoft, they are on the hook to provide at least the smallest level of support for a product they have no involvement in. Oh, it doesn't install properly, but it came with Windows, so Microsoft MUST support it will be the feeling of consumers. Microsoft could in theory put a link to download another browser, but then, how do you pull it down if IE is not already on the computer? And again, if the download link fails, or the web server for one of the other browsers is down, who will get the blame?

That is the catch-22 here, if Microsoft doesn't put ANY browser on the machine, then they are releasing a product that does not include a "basic feature" that people expect. The EU could also fine Apple, because Apple doesn't include other browsers besides Safari in MacOS. It has nothing to do with competition at this point in time, because people expect a web browser to come included with their OS.


RE: I am sorry....
By mwtaff on 5/22/2009 10:26:40 AM , Rating: 4
Well the way i see it, and i may be looking at the recent fines issued in an over simplistic view, but if i wanted to sell my product in a different country, i would expect to sell it in accordance with that countries laws/policies/legislation or whatever, if i break any of them then i would expect to get punished. Simple as. Microsoft has a history of anti-trust behaviour as everyone knows, and has also been fined numerous times in the US also i believe? so it isn't just the EU.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 3:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
Lets take a look at a different side for a minute...

Who are MS's competitors in the market (OS or browser)?
Apple, Linux, Mozilla, Opera, Google

How many of those are based in the EU?
Opera Software is it... Unless you count Linux distributions, but it is freeware, and I believe (although Im not certain) that Linux was based out of the US.

So we have a single company +some Linux distributors that are directly involved with the EU (and I don't consider trade a direct involvement, if that wasn't already clear.)

Here is what I see from this: the EU is using the excuse of "anti-competitive practices," whether the accusations are true or not, as reason to fine the bajeesus out of US companies that are competing with mostly US companies. That just says that the EU wants money.

This point is even more true when considering the Intel fines they just made... AMD is a US company... and the only real competitor to Intel in the consumer market.

I call all of this meddling in the affairs of other country's economies. Unfortunately, the US does much of this also (e.g. every war since WWII.) If only everyone would follow Ron Paul's idea of non-interventionism...


RE: I am sorry....
By remo on 5/23/2009 3:44:51 AM , Rating: 3
Opera is made by a norwegian company... and iirc norway is not a member of the Eu.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 4:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, you're right, I overlooked that...

So now that limits MS competitors to... Linux distributors... That means that there are no competing browsers from the EU.

Thank you for improving my point when my ignorance to the countries in the EU did not serve the idea any justice.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 9:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Clarification after having read this with a non sleep deprived brain.

quote:
So now that limits MS competitors to... Linux distributors... That means that there are no competing browsers from the EU.


That statement is referring to the MS competitors that are under the authority of the EU.


RE: I am sorry....
By Oregonian2 on 5/23/2009 3:50:09 PM , Rating: 3
On my (French) Archos 605 wifi, I've the choice of one and only one browser: Opera. Wonder if they should be investigated as well.


RE: I am sorry....
By tigen on 5/23/2009 3:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Who are MS's competitors in the market (OS or browser)?
Apple, Linux, Mozilla, Opera, Google"

Only Apple competes semi-effectively in the consumer OS segment, and with Apple primarily a hardware company it's not really the same (they don't market their OS as a product for generic PCs). MS still has monopoly power on operating systems.

How else can they charge hundreds for an OS when Linux can do the same technical job? It's not because Windows works better, it's because of monopoly power with respect to compatibility with 3rd party software and peripherals. Monopoly power means they have to play by special rules.

All the people frothing about stuff like this must be MS employees or shareholders. Competition means better stuff and lower prices for consumers.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 9:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you missed my point entirely.

My point is that the EU is indirectly raising prices for the end consumer, in an industry that they have no companies in.

Monopoly power or not, these fines on Intel and MS do not change the quality of their product, or the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for the better product (as the higher quality product, for whatever reason it is higher quality, tends to grab the sales in the tech markets. In MS's case, they support nearly ever hardware config, and nearly every modern application. Intel has a much more powerful product, with better energy usage.)

I am talking only about the economics in this situation, and how the EU is indirectly causing higher prices. And just because it is indirect doesn't lesson the amount that they cause it. They are the cause of the higher prices.

Let me also say; no, I am not at all affiliated with MS aside from using their products. That was a very naive thing for you to assume.


RE: I am sorry....
By mathew7 on 5/25/2009 1:06:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
My point is that the EU is indirectly raising prices for the end consumer, in an industry that they have no companies in.

We all know the financial power of MS. How much do you think a "big OEM computer"'s license is gone to MS? I'm sure that MS sells them for less than HALF of what you can see an OEM version on the shelf (or small OEMs). And MS makes profit from THOSE sales and enterpise sales. The "direct consumer" (retail) is a very small volume.
quote:
In MS's case, they support nearly ever hardware config, and nearly every modern application.

Why do you think is that? Example: small company, small SW budget, make a HW release. What drivers? Well, Windows because it represents 90% of customer base. Linux? no...it will increase orders only 5-10% and it will not cover the additional costs.

Monopoly is an endless loop: you overlook the minuscule competing products which in the end will mean that you SUPPORT the monopoly, although you have no link to the monopoly holder.

And who sais linux will not work on "nearly every" hardware configurations? The problem is only the newest hardware CHIPS because of the previous example.
I wonder: if games whould be "ported" to linux, how would this affect the market shares?


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/25/2009 2:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Think about the economics here... it is very simple. MS gets fined, so they must raise prices to make up for that loss.

MS prices go up across the board, OEM to companies like Dell, OEM direct to consumer, or Retail copy to consumer. Prices go up.

Now companies like Dell have a higher input cost, so much like the fine, they must raise their prices to make up for it.

In the end, the consumer pays the price.

As for your response to the second quote;
What good will it do to just fine the heck out of the monopoly? Once again, all it will do is raise costs to the end user.

All I have been saying is there HAS to be a better way, because the current way just sucks, plain and simple. I don't have a solution, but that isn't my job... I am just voicing the concern that fines only exacerbate the problem.


RE: I am sorry....
By Danish1 on 5/22/2009 10:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
Both Microsoft and Intel are being fined due to complaints made by other US companies, and as far as I'm aware they are/have been in trouble with the US justice department for the exact same thing.

Ya that's right, that means you're just another daft hypocrite.

That being said I don't agree with the browser ruling at all. To me bundling a browser with an OS is no different than bundling an exhaust with a car. Both are very much needed and both can easily be replaced if you want more chrome.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 3:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter who makes the complaint... it matters where the fine money actually goes. When the EU makes the fine, it doesn't go to the American companies that complained, that's for sure.

The only thing these fines do to help the finee's competitors is by forcing said finee to raise prices... it is a completely backwards system, all it does is hurt. It lowers productivity, innovation, investment, and consumer happiness, and all for what? So that the EU can squander the money away?

Government acts exactly like a business... one that would have epic phailed in a free market because they do all of the wrong things. The reasons why the US was so great... the Constitution (when it was followed) barred government from becoming that sort of a business. Well, look how that turned out as the taxpayers are forced to pay for the inefficiencies and ignorance in the system. Taxpayers will continue to pay in the form of a hidden tax called "inflation" that has been allowed thanks to the repealing of the gold standard... by government... Which was an unconstitutional act, by the way.

It is so amazing what happens in this world... and people are so oblivious.


RE: I am sorry....
By Danish1 on 5/30/2009 2:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
What you miss here is that there's a difference between a lawsuit and a complaint which leads to an investigation, and ultimately being fined for breaking the law.

Why should money Intel is being fined for breaking EU law be given to American companies?

That's not how it works on any level.

Get real, all I see projected from Americans here is butthurt national pride.


RE: I am sorry....
By crystal clear on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By crystal clear on 5/23/2009 7:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
Something more to prove that I am right-(rating me down does not deny the facts on the ground-I realy dont care about ratings)

a €1.06 billion payment actually would make Intel the 18th highest contributor to the EU budget - Bulgaria, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia each pay less each year into the EU budget than Intel will have to do with this one fine.

Time for them to have some representation in the Council of the EU and the Parliament if they are such a net payer?


http://www.jonworth.eu/record-e106-billion-fine-fo...

So rightly said by Kroes:

Intel Now "Sponsor of the European Taxpayer"


RE: I am sorry....
By knutjb on 5/23/2009 10:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
You're mixing apples and oranges. Bulgaria, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia did not pressure computer manufacturers to use Intel over AMD. The numbers look impressive, but are not, well, comparable, they only show how huge Intel is.

Intel's fine appears to be valid and backed up with evidence from the manufacturers.

Microsoft's is bunk, but it's understandable that the are being investigated given their previous history. To force MS to ship IE separately is socialistic, ooops, the EU are socialist, my bad. The aren't pressing Apple to do the same, smells to fishy to me. Yeah I know Apple is a small fish but if you force it on the big guy you have to apply the same rule to all competitors.


RE: I am sorry....
By crystal clear on 5/23/2009 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
I have NOT said that these countries pressure computer manufacturers to use Intel over AMD.

I emphasize the size of the fine.

"each pay less each year into the EU budget than Intel will have to do with this ONE fine."

Also note its NOT the people or the countries of EU who are complaining, rather a competing company who has lost its marketshare for its own faults & doings -in short mismanagement.

Imposing massive fines in an effort to deter/stop that company's policies or practices is WRONG.

Find other ways & means to do it !

This is not a case of tax evasion/fraud/misappropriation of funds/or other similar crimes that deserve to punished by huge fines.

The EU is clearly looking for funding its budgets through massive fines on comapnies like Intel,Microsoft.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 9:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


RE: I am sorry....
By mathew7 on 5/25/2009 1:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
But a fine is payed once, while those countries pay the amounts each year. If Intel would make a "contract" for yearly payments, then maybe they would get a chair.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/25/2009 2:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh god, please don't encourage yearly fines...


RE: I am sorry....
By Chaser on 5/22/2009 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
Great. Then they can use their economic might to be more productive and engineer their own commercial OS bundled with or without whatever browser they deem fair. Rather than taking "victim" pot shots at other corporations abroad through their pathetic judicial system.


RE: I am sorry....
By BrgMx5 on 5/22/2009 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 1
In what regards the rule itself, they were also in trouble in the US, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr...

By bundling the software, they are unfairly restricting the market for competing web browsers. IMO the EU ruling does nothing to change this because it is not objective enough.

The only way to resolve the dispute would be install options in Windows or in the case of OEM software a notice on first startup.

Would this benefit the consumer? No

You would have no way to access the internet to choose a browser, so let it be …


RE: I am sorry....
By yomamafor1 on 5/22/2009 12:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
However, by bundling the essential softwares, Microsoft can provide a more complete platform to the consumer. Those without extensive computer knowledge would just want a computer that works right out of the box. Would you expect your parents to find out that she can't go online after she just spent $999 on a laptop that she really wants?

This brings me to my second point. If you can't get online, how can you obtain 3rd party web browser from the internet? Should Mozilla or Google start distributing them inside the stores? Who is going to foot the cost of that?

All in all, those who thinks MS bundling essential softwares with their windows is anti-competitive needs to do a reality check. Microsoft is doing nothing more than satisfying its customers.


RE: I am sorry....
By Solandri on 5/22/2009 3:56:06 PM , Rating: 1
The logical conclusion to your reasoning is that each computer should be a locked box, with all the software you could ever use provided by the manufacturer. You wouldn't be allowed to add new software - you'd have to base your initial computer purchase on what software each offering came with pre-bundled.

You have to strike a good balance between useful pre-bundled software and competitive aftermarket software. There's considerable debate as to where that balance lies. But given that all the major browsers are free, while major productivity software (word processorts, spreadsheets, etc) cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, I would argue that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE for free is stifling competition in the browser market. That slows down the rate of innovation and saddles us with inferior software compared to what there could be with true competition.

And every major operating system comes with an ftp client for getting files over the net (well, Windows didn't get it until Win95, but that was ages ago). Those are dirt simple to code, and adding some simple scripts to let you "browse" ftp sites for which browser to download would be trivial. In fact that was the direction the Internet was going with Archie and Veronica servers before the WWW was invented.


RE: I am sorry....
By Sazar on 5/22/2009 3:33:52 PM , Rating: 3
The issue is, where is the outcry for allowing products to work or be bundled on a Linux distro or OSX? No outcry there? Apple technically has complete monopoly on it's operating system but I haven't seen lawsuits against them or penalties against them. Come on EU, they have $20 billion cash, you can sue them, I am sure they can afford your fines.

The lack of consistency in the ruling and the continued use of the same excuses are pretty ridiculous. Firefox already has a large share in the EU of internet traffic. If Microsoft was truly being anti-competitive, would this have ever happened?


RE: I am sorry....
By Solandri on 5/22/2009 4:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
If Linux or OSX ever captures 90%+ of the OS market, then yes I would complain about them bundling a browser too.

Please recall that the impetus for the original Microsoft monopoly trial in the U.S. was that IE was bundled with Windows for free, and Netscape (the #1 browser prior to the bundling) saw its market share shrivel until it eventually died. After Netscape died, IE saw no improvements for about 2 years. It only had a few security updates during that time - no new features were added. Only when a bunch of open source developers working for free and giving their product away for free came up with Firefox with major innovations, only then did Microsoft finally update IE with new features.

I think it's pretty clear that the shiny new features you see in IE7 and IE8 would not be there if there had been no competition from Firefox. Firefox exists solely because of people willing to work on it for free. IMHO we would have a lot more innovation and progress in the browser market if they could be sold for money. But the only way that can happen is if Microsoft stops giving away a full-featured IE for free.


RE: I am sorry....
By themaster08 on 5/23/2009 4:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it's pretty clear that the shiny new features you see in IE7 and IE8 would not be there if there had been no competition from Firefox.

Well there you have it. The competition very much exists even though I.E is included within Windows, so what the hell is this all about?
I'll tell you what it's all about. The E.U lining their pockets at the expense of a company that has built itself up to be the success it is today. I'm not saying Microsoft is perfect. I'm fully aware of past misdemeanours, but this is far from one of them. I'm all for standing up for the little guy too, but when the little guy has 22.48% of the total market share, with this figure ever increasing, and I.E having 66.1% (hardly a monopolistic figure) they don't need standing up for. They can stand on their own two feet.

This is an absolutely absurd trial. It's not as though the competition is being driven out. The competition has a very healthy and ever increasing market share. If anything, it's Microsoft that is being driven out with this ludicrous trial. Now isn't that anti-competitive? No, of course not, because after all, it's big bad Microsoft.

Seriously, what next? Media Player? Wordpad? Calculator?
If Microsoft lose this trial then they are open to any so-called "anti-competitiveness" from any kind of software developer, right?


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/23/2009 11:07:57 AM , Rating: 3
22.48% is insignificant and it proves Microsoft is using its monopoly to keep competitors from succeeding.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/23/2009 9:43:55 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I have an idea then... lets cut off 22.48% of your arms, cutting from the ends, of course.

By my calculations, that will take off anything just past your wrists. Please, try it, and type it out to us how it works.

Wait... Oh crap...


RE: I am sorry....
By themaster08 on 5/24/2009 6:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
22.48% is insignificant and it proves Microsoft is using its monopoly to keep competitors from succeeding.

But I suppose if OS X has 22.48% of the market share your opinion would be totally different wouldn't it?
22.48% and ever increasing is very significant. Especially when this is only one of the ever increasing competitors. You know this, you're just too hellbent upon citicizing Microsoft your idiocy has taken over.

What makes a browser any different to any other software included within Windows? So because Microsoft dominate the OS market that means they should strip their operating system down to basics?

What about user support? Someone rings up Microsoft "I can't display a webpage" they will reply "I'm sorry, the E.U has forced us to install competitors browsers, you'll have to consult their customer support"
The end-user will gain absolutely nothing from this besides frustration.
The only ones gaining anything from this are the E.U and anti-Microsoft zealots such as yourself, who get some sort-of cheap thrill from this, because you've obviously never heard of a species known as a female.

So what is the Linux market share at present? Around 4%?
That's more-or-less insignificant, so should Microsoft include a version of Linux on their Windows discs?

Wow, I've just wasted 5 minutes of my time typing up something you won't read, but at least others will be humoured by your idiocy when you reply to this with some 10 year-old insult.


RE: I am sorry....
By msomeoneelsez on 5/25/2009 2:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
He doesn't even need to reply for the humor to be there. +1


RE: I am sorry....
By PrezWeezy on 5/22/2009 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, I hear US bashing all the time. Suck it up.

Not to mention the fact that if Microsoft would bundle third-party browsers, MS would be on the hook to SUPPORT those browsers. If I were Ballmer, I'd just ship two versions of Win 7, one with IE, one without. You won't need many copies of the one without it. The EC is a bunch of idiots for not realizing the implications of what they are expecting MS to do. This is all a bunch of BS which must have a hidden agenda somewhere. I don't know what it is, but I refuse to believe people so high up are really that completely and utterly incompetent...


RE: I am sorry....
By Samus on 5/22/2009 4:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is fucking ridiculous. What's next? Are they going after notepad and calc too?


RE: I am sorry....
By FDisk City on 5/22/2009 10:08:23 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft shouldn’t include any bundled browser with their OS’s. If people want to use a different browser, all they have to do is go to the manufacturer’s website and... oh... wait...

Next time I buy a car, I think I’m going to complain it shouldn’t come with tires because it’s anti competitive to aftermarket tire manufacturers.


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By inighthawki on 5/22/2009 10:33:57 AM , Rating: 3
No actually there ISN'T an OS monopoly. Large market share != monopoly. Microsoft has just managed to be successful, and nobody forces people to buy their software. Microsoft does not undercut the prices of their competitors, and one of their competitors is even a free alternative. I guess you're not smart enough to understand this concept though...


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By CU on 5/22/2009 10:52:17 AM , Rating: 3
Well call the police and tell them someone is pointing a gun at you, because I know people who don't use windows.


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By CU on 5/22/2009 11:39:41 AM , Rating: 3
"A monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." From wikipeida. I am sure other places have similar definitions. MS doesn't determine the terms on which others have access to an OS or web browser, so how is it a monopoly. Did the EU rule that they are a monopoly?


RE: I am sorry....
By reader1 on 5/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: I am sorry....
By CU on 5/22/2009 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 4
I assume that you no longer wish to have this conversation with a reply like that. I wish the conversation could have been more constructive, but that is the way of the web I guess. If anyone would like to step in Reader1's place please do.


RE: I am sorry....
By ClownPuncher on 5/22/2009 5:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
I will. People are FORCED to buy windows, because ... damn, I dunno.

Because...people are too effing dumb to use something else. So lets fine the users of windows because they didn't want to try something else!! Yea...wait? Hmm.

Fining a company out of business is anti-competitive isn't it?

Don't want to use windows? Then don't. Use the latest kernel, or OSX, or help write more slackware, or stfu.


RE: I am sorry....
By jhb116 on 5/22/2009 12:01:59 PM , Rating: 4
First - You're an idiot.

Second - why do you hate M$ so much? Only people with such hatred of M$ believe that this is actually a good thing. An OS should come fully capable out of the box - not requiring multiple installs to do basic tasks. To use the car analogy everyone loves - I don't want to have to buy the car - then go get tires and seats - install those and then be able to drive it off the lot. I want to sign the paperwork and drive away with my new car. Similarly - I want to install Windows, Leopard or Linux and be able to move files around, surf the internet and play music - all basic functions we expect from a PC.

Finally - When a gov't takes action like this - there should be a positive end state for the CONSUMER. Based on you expressed beliefs - the EU should outlaw Windows vice fine them. That is the only answer that fosters the kind of competition you and they seem to be looking for. I'll bet - like most other rulings the US gov't has made in the past (remember AT&T/ma Bell) - one dominant company will be replace with another.

If you don't like the situation - do something about it and stop being an hater.......


RE: I am sorry....
By mathew7 on 5/25/2009 1:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An OS should come fully capable out of the box

I agree. Linux does it for some years. So why such a small share?
The answers are: confort and price.
Confort: "I only learned to use windows in school/home/whatever" Transition costs time&money. Most non-technical poeple already know Windows and are scared to switch. This includes managers.
Price: Windows costs 100$, linux is free. Wow, Windows must be better since it's sold. Technical people now the difference, but non-tech people relate price like with HW: pricier means better (after all, how else could they be asking that price).

I have tried to do switches at my fathers companies: firefox went ok, but openoffice proved a mistake: many suppliers use MS Office and there were problems using their files. Also the SW they used (accounting/product handling) required excel API for reports. So even if you try to change a small thing, you end-up being sorry for it.
THIS IS CALLED VENDOR LOCK-IN. Except that it does not affect just you company, it affects the whole world.

Yeah I'm hating & bashing MS even if I use their OSes daily (work and home).


RE: I am sorry....
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/22/2009 10:53:35 AM , Rating: 3
Surely you have a source to back this claim?


RE: I am sorry....
By neogrin on 5/22/2009 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 3
"Linux desktop market share is up as much as 61 percent, study finds" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9910263-16.html

"Linux desktop market share is up as much as 61 percent, study finds" http://www.linuxinvent.info/gnu-linux-zone/laptop/...

"Apple market share tops 10%, Windows share lowest since tracking began" http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/02/apple-market-share-...

"Net stats show Apple market share near 10 percent"http://www.macworld.com/article/138599/2009/02/app...

Yep, you are right...As these articles and studies show, no one is using any other OSs and no one has any other choice but to use Windows.

How can we ever get out from under the thumb of Redmond?

Note: Just because you don't Want to learn how to use (or your favorite game doesn't run on) another OS, doesn't mean Microsoft is forcing you to use Windows.


RE: I am sorry....
By DigitalFreak on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By CU on 5/22/2009 10:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
So think about a car a little more. How about the engine or transmission? The whole car is not sourced out.


RE: I am sorry....
By BZDTemp on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am sorry....
By CU on 5/22/2009 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Market should not determine what the company can and can not do. Only if they are a monopoly should. So, your reason for throwing out the car comparison seems invalid to me.

As for the a boat being included. I don't think most people expect buying a car means they should be able to transverse over water, so they don't include a boat. But most people do expect an OS to be able to access the internet and browse the WWW.

Yes many parts of a car are made by many companies. But if just one is made by the car company and included in the car then it is the same as the browser coming with the OS when they are made by the same company.


RE: I am sorry....
By themaster08 on 5/23/2009 5:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well one car manufacturer does not have a 80+ market share nor does this none-existing automaker bundle any boats with it's cars!

You see, this is what I'm having trouble grasping.

This whole trial is about Internet Explorer, right? So why are Operating System market share figures being looked at? Just because Internet Explorer is included in the operating system with the highest market share? So what? Download and install Firefox if you feel that offended!

It would be a more viable argument to compare OS market share if Mozilla for example had an operating system, but they don't! This ultimately makes everything needlessly complicated.

To those who feel that people are forced to use Windows. I don't see what on earth that has to do with Internet Explorer, because you're hardly forced to use that, and that is what this whole trial is about!
Besides, when I installed Internet Explorer 8, it was an optional standalone installation. It wasn't forced on me, not even through Windows Update.

Try looking at I.E market share for a change, and you'll see the figure is far from monopolistic. After all, that is what the whole damn trial is about.


RE: I am sorry....
By BZDTemp on 5/23/2009 1:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
The trial is about MS using their Windows market share to push IE. That is what's unfair business practice. When you're in control of a market you're expected to not abuse that control simply because that is to powerful an instrument.


RE: I am sorry....
By themaster08 on 5/23/2009 5:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The trial is about MS using their Windows market share to push IE.

Inclusion and Obtrusion are entirely different.

I.E is included within Windows. You can install another browser if you desire, thus this is not an obtrusion.


RE: I am sorry....
By BZDTemp on 5/23/2009 9:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can you buy Windows without IE?

No you can't - enough said.


RE: I am sorry....