backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Oct 26 at 9:24 AM

Regulators don't buy Microsoft's excuses about a "technical error"

It had seemed that Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and the European union had finally resolved their differences when it came to antitrust issues.  Microsoft agreed that it would offer a special "ballot screen", which would give users the choice of multiple browsers when they first installed or used Windows 7 -- and as a result, third-party browser makers would be on a level playing field and face no "bundling" discrimination.  The EU asserts its claims were validated, as the ballot screen appeared to cause a large drop in Microsoft's EU browser market share.

But that fragile true has been shattered when Microsoft went back on its promise, and stopped offering the ballot screen -- temporarily -- with the rollout of Windows 7 SP1.  Microsoft in past comments has blamed the abandonment of the option on an undisclosed "technical error" in the update.

EU regulators are unsympathetic.

This week they announced a so-called "statement of objections" -- a procedural step serves as a warning of impending punishments.

The EU's antitrust regulator, the European Commission writes:

The European Commission has informed Microsoft of its preliminary view that Microsoft has failed to comply with its commitments to offer users a choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft (see IP/09/1941)....

In its statement of objections, the Commission takes the preliminary view that Microsoft has failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1, which was released in February 2011. From February 2011 until July 2012, millions of Windows users in the EU may not have seen the choice screen. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that period.

Browser Ballot Box
Microsoft's Windows 7 Service Pack 1 "accidentally" turned off the browser ballot box.
[Image Source: Telegraph UK]

It's hard to say what, if anything, Microsoft can do at this point to avoid punishment for "accidentally" breaking its agreement with the EU.  One important thing to note, though, is that the precise punishment has not been announced.  Thus it is probably in Microsoft's best interest to provide sound technical evidence (if it has it) supporting its assertion that the ballot screen was turned off on accident.

The company faces tough questions, in the sense that even if it's telling the truth about the initial error being accidental, that it's hard to believe that the company wouldn't notice the ballot screen being gone for a full year.  Add to that the background that Microsoft had seen its market share disintegrate after the browser screen went live, and the picture painted is rather incriminating.

Microsoft has struggled in the past with the region's stricter antitrust laws.  It recently lost its appeal to vacate a €899M fine, although the EC did kindly reduce it to a mere €860M ($1.1B USD).  The software giant has paid close to $2B USD in total fines to the European union for antitrust offenses.  

Microsoft is also being investigated for API abuse, following claims by third party browser makers that they were being "excluded" from the ARM-architecture-compatible version of Windows 8.

Source: EU



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: If I was MS
By GatoRat on 10/25/2012 2:50:06 PM , Rating: 3
Your history isn't entirely accurate.

Netscape initially charged nothing. It was only AFTER IE shipped that Netscape started charging $10 per copy. They were widely criticized for this and quickly changed to charging only corporate customers.

Moreover, Netscape was awful. It leaked memory like crazy and would often crash and/or consume all of memory or CPU just sitting doing nothing. Developing for Netscape was a nightmare. Perhaps this, more than anything, made IE so welcome.

Netscape pointedly refused to modernize their browser and embrace emerging web standards. To say they were intransigent is an understatement.


RE: If I was MS
By raddude9 on 10/26/2012 4:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
your history on the other hand is entirely inaccurate.

v1.0 of Netscape Navigator was only free for educational and non-profit organization use as were the many following versions. The only versions that were entirely free were the pre-release versions.

Sure Netscape leaked memory and crashed a lot, but so did the early versions of IE.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by
quote:
Developing for Netscape was a nightmare


And what are you talking about when you say:
quote:
Netscape pointedly refused to modernize their browser and embrace emerging web standards

Because Netscape were busy giving us useful new and open standards like Javascript in v2.0, while microsoft were busy trying to hoist proprietary and closed languages like VBScript on us. In case you have amnesia, all browser makers back then were 'bending' the standards to make the web more useful, but at least they weren't trying to tie the web to single OS like microsoft was.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki