EU objects to browser in Windows
Updated at 8:33 a.m. PST January 17, with comments from Opera and antitrust attorneys in Brussels.
European regulators notified Microsoft it believes the software giant is in violation of the region's antitrust laws by bundling its Internet Explorer browser in Windows, the company said Friday.
The European Commission, which received that Microsoft was using its market dominance in bundling IE into the Windows operating system, opened its investigation into the tying issue last January.
According to a statement issued by the European Commission:
The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90 percent of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match.
The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain.
In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.
A spokesman for the commission declined to comment on whether there has been any discussion on whether Microsoft would offer a version of Windows with the browser and one without, much like it did after the Commission ordered it to separate its Windows Media Player from its operating system and offer a version with and without the operating system.
A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment, noting it would not make statements beyond its press release.
Microsoft, in response to the Commission's statement of objections, said:
We are committed to conducting our business in full compliance with European law. We are studying the Statement of Objections now.
Microsoft will have two months to respond in writing to the European Commission's objections and also will be given an opportunity to request an oral hearing. After assessing Microsoft's written and/or oral response, the commission will issue a final decision on the matter, which could include a fine, an enforcement order, or a remedy.
Microsoft, meanwhile, further noted in its statement that the commission indicated in its "statement of objections" that the remedies put in place by the U.S. courts in 2002, following antitrust proceedings in Washington, D.C., do not make the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows lawful under European Union law.
In reacting to the commission's objections, rival browser maker Opera applauded the move.
"We think it is right of the EU for the sake of the consumers to be concerned about someone potentially misusing their competitive power," Chief Development Officer Christen Krogh told CNET News.
Antitrust attorneys in private practice in Brussels said the commission's "statement of objections," is not a light matter and is likely to pose challenges for the software giant.
David Anderson, an antitrust attorney and partner with Berwin Leighton Paisner in Brussels, said, "The commission's continued pursuit of Microsoft's tying of its operating system to Media Player and now Internet Explorer sends a clear signal to dominant companies in Europe: the commission is serious about exclusionary tying and bundling."
Anderson added, however, that if the commission ultimately requires Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with and without IE bundled in, pricing will play a key role.
The commission won the battle but lost the war on its Media Player order, said some antitrust experts. Microsoft was able to offer versions of Windows with and without the Media Player for the same price and, as a result, computer makers and users loaded the Windows version with the Media Player.
But while pricing may be a key issue if the commission opts to require Microsoft to unbundle IE, European antitrust regulators may be reluctant to demand such an order because it would require them to set pricing, and enforce and monitor adherence to the order, Anderson said.
One well-informed antitrust lawyer in private practice in Brussels said the commission would not likely require Microsoft to unbundle IE from the operating system, since that remedy did not work well with the Media Player.
Instead, the commission may consider proposing that Microsoft offer more than one browser with its operating system, noted the antitrust attorney.
And although some antitrust attorneys say they expect similar tying cases to arise with the commission and Microsoft, this antitrust attorney disagrees.
"The commission will only go after the really important applications that result in platform monopoly maintenance, in the long term," said the antitrust attorney.
The attorney cited Microsoft's Windows, IE, and Office, as well as its server operating software, as examples of a platform monopoly. And, more recently, the attorney said Microsoft is looking to the Internet as its next platform for Web applications that will be made dependent upon Windows to run and look their best.
The European Committee for Interoperable Systems raised the same issue, noting in a statement:
By tying Internet Explorer to Windows and using proprietary IE standards, and making Web applications and Web content dependent on Silverlight and .Net, Microsoft seeks to establish itself as the Web's gatekeeper.
Meanwhile, Anderson noted that Microsoft may also face an emboldened commission staff, given the same set of attorneys who won the Media Player case before the European Court of First Instance are the same ones overseeing the IE issue.
Dawn Kawamoto covers enterprise security and financial news relating to technology for CNET News. E-mail Dawn. 
Give me a break.
I love the Opera browser and I think its fantastic. They've had better features than even Firefox for a long time. But seriously, you (Opera) need to come up with better marketing strategies rather than use the Microsoft-hating-EU-commission to try to unbundle IE from Windows. Lets face it - if IE does get unbundled, given the current market share and popularity, Firefox will probably be the one people download, or Chrome... not Opera. By the way, I hope you won't go after Apple and ask for Safari to be unbundled too! Wake up Opera, and do something constructive, because, like I said, you have a very good browser.
And seriously, how is any of this different than what Apple does?
The worst part about this is that there are many computer illiterate people who would have no idea what to do. If you tell them they have to get their own browsers or media players, how would they know which ones to get to ensure a safe, stable, and compatible operating environment?
typo? by forgoing?
EU simply doesn't understand it. There are some configurations and tools on the Windows or other OS that can only be managed through a web browser... How about setting up your router for example?
In that case, you need to download FireFox to access your router.. but wait, you don't have Internet connection yet!
LOL
(Definitely beats Opera, at the very least)
In the end, windows will only be able to be a DOS, as including any other services doesnt give people a fair chance of marketing their B.S.
agreed btw
The OEM can drop-in whatever browser they want, and it would skirt the whole issue.
Either way? Their sandbox, their rules. If MSFT doesn't like it, they can leave at any time.
It is nice for everyone to play by the same rules, but one rule for Microsoft and another rule for Linux/OSX/BSD, that will not be acceptable.
This is EU that makes consumers pay more money as a consequence of their BSkyB antitrust suit, thus I will never believe in them.
Also, there is only one rule, and "other OSes" actually adhere to it; Apple skirts it by selling hardware (which puts them in a different industry entirely), and by not embedding Safari into OSX to the point where removal would cripple the OS itself. If they included Firefox, they'd be all set. Linux adheres to the rule nicely by offering the user a wide number of browser choices during installation.
Windows comes with IE bundled.
OS X comes with Safari bundled.
Unless the EU goes after Apple for doing the exact same thing, then they have a doublestandard and it's one that Microsoft can toss at the EU for unfair trade practices. They could even point at Google's Chrome as being bundled with other Google products, or that Quicktime comes bundled with iTunes. There's a lot of bundling going on out there and the EU's decision to go after one company for what is commonplace in the industry today smacks of their targeted agenda against Microsoft.
The OEM can drop whatever they want in the machines now. But the box sales of the OS do not have that option. OS X doesn't either.
It could be considered discrimination. There's all sorts of ways to look at this and not a single one of them benefits anyone other than the EU itself.
Your agument about Apple getting around the issue by selling OS X with the hardware- you just shot your own argument right there. OS X come *BUNDLED* with the hardware. Yes, that's right, you don't get a choice of Linux, Windows, or any other OS other than OS X when you power up that Mac. See, that's the argument the EU has right there and you've just demonstrated it perfectly why it doesn't work.
Please don't try using the hardware argument again- it's been busted.
Not sure if Google or Apple should celebrate on this...
This ruling against Microsoft is one of them, to be blunt. They are expecting Microsoft to deal by different rules than everyone else, and it's time for that to stop and realize that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft including their own web browser, media player, etc. in the OS.
If people REALLY want a different on...... they will find a way to get on the internet and get a different one, as I did!
I love Microsoft products.... but I'll still say that there are better media players than Windows Media Player out there, KMPlayer to be specific.
Same thing for IE7/8,...... Firefox and Chrome are somewhat better than them right now, so I use BOTH those latter two right now (seeing which is faster in day to day use and more secure).
People need browsers. Even if you don't want to use IE, you have to have a browser to get to the web to download another browser. Browsers aren't sold in stores and you cannot get a browser without downloading it. So how are you going to download it if you don't have one to begin with?
To be honest, this is a ridiculous hold over from the Netscape battle, and it's time it ended. I have no problem with ANY bundled software in my OS. Just give me an easy way to remove it so I can if I don't want it. Windows 7 already isn't going to include Mail, Photo Galery, Movie Maker, etc. by default.
If the EU is going to do this, then they need to crack down on Apple as well. The Mac OS has not only a browser, but iLife, including iTunes, Quicktime, iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb preinstalled. How is that any different than including IE? It's unbalanced.
Seriously, governments need to move into the modern era where most people realize that there are options out there and couldn't really care less if their OS has bundled software.
* Linux distros give you a wide variety of choice as to which browser you want - you can pick it (or as many as you like) during install (Opera, Firefox, Konqueror, Netscape Navigator, Flock, Dillo, links, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head...)
* Apple sells computers (as in, the whole package), not operating systems. Expand your sales to the entire box (hardware+software), and the rules are different due to the fact that you're selling an all-in-one solution, not just a piece of it (which is what MSFT does by selling only Windows). This is a poorly-translated jist of the laws mind, but it should suffice.
* Oh, and neither Apple nor RedHat (or any other Linux distro) have ever gone around and threatened OEMs with price hikes (or conversely, withdrawal of "marketing" funds) if the OEM refuses to reject the idea of installing competing web browsers.
Have you or anyone actually removed Safari from OSX? No really have you done it?
It is still on that hard drive somewhere even after you remove it, and will automatically be re-installed if the OS realizes "Hey, this person doesn't have a web browser!"
"* Linux distros give you a wide variety of choice as to which browser you want"
Really? Try Ubuntu. Firefox is installed by default and there is no way to install Opera without Medibuntu repositories. There is no way to install another browser instead during the installation process.
Is there anything wrong about it? No, anybody can install any browser using repositories (and no browser is needed for that process ;)).
"* Apple (...) and the rules are different due to the fact that you're selling an all-in-one solution, not just a piece of it"
Apple doesn't sell all-in-one solution, it does not offer me a flat where I can put my computer, they do not offer me the place where I can get electric current. This is just part of the solution!
Don't be funny, in this way You can explain everything.
"* Apple sells computers (as in, the whole package), not operating systems. Expand your sales to the entire box (hardware+software), and the rules are different due to the fact that you're selling an all-in-one solution, not just a piece of it (which is what MSFT does by selling only Windows). This is a poorly-translated jist of the laws mind, but it should suffice. "
Your agrument would be valid if Apple also included a copy of Windows, Linux, BSD, Irix, and every other OS on the planet in the box with that Apple product to give you a choice of which OS you wanted on that hardware. However they don't, they *BUNDLE* the OS X OS with the hardware. The EU's complaint about bundling applies here as well.
You're right, however.... your comments are a poorly translated gist and demonstrates you don't actually have a complete handle on the situation. It's a good attempt, but flawed.
And a lot of people who buy computers (read: grandmothers/grandfathers) wouldn't know where to download another browser if their life depended on it. It's just so much easier to have a small "Internet Explorer" icon on the desktop when you purchase your system.
It is a stupid thing to do and the EU is stupid for doing it.
Monopolies should not be possible for too long, it endangers real innovation, and choice for the end user.
Glad to see this is happening.
I'm looking forward to see more choice than just MS Windows pre installed on personal computers.
It's time for people like you, who apparently have their heads up their butts, to realize that and simply live with it. Microsoft has won the OS wars, period and done with. It's time to stop punishing them for building the better mousetrap, and realize that you are being totally unfair towards Microsoft.
But WOOPs, it IS Microsoft, as if that will ever happen... they love having their own version of everything that anyone else has ever made in existence, or buy them out.
Microsoft have abused their position and lead to such a terrible web with incompatibilities.
The standards aren't that hard Microsoft, _I_ know them and i don't intend to build a web browser in the near future. (had thought about it though)
They have stagnated the "web", regardless of peoples opinions, and that is why they are targeting them, not just because "oh lol, its M$, let us steal some more monies from them".
People are STILL using ActiveX for crying out loud. (yet another attempt to copy)
Now they are doing the same again, but renamed it Silverlight and threw in a scripting to try beat out Flash. (both are pretty crap to be honest)
I see no problem with Microsoft bundling their own browser with their operating system, but the end user should be able to uninstall it if desired.
- by Xyraxel January 16, 2009 8:26 PM PST
- So lets say i buy a copy of windows without an browser, how am I supposed to download a browser ??? does that mean I should buy a copy of a browser aswell ?? to be honest I think thats bull **** , I dont use IE i use firefox but come on this really doesnt make much sense to me, even Ubuntu and Mac's come pre loaded with Web browsers.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by tigrad04 January 17, 2009 9:35 PM PST
- Agree 100%. If the EU goes after Microsoft they should also go after Apple for bundleing safari in OSX and force all the distributions of linux from including Firefox. I would love for someone to explain to me why opera is going to great legnths to expand their market share. It is not like we are paying for their browser anyways and microsoft is blocking revenue for them. Or is that their goal. forcing us to buy a browser like in the Netscape days. Doubtfull that would happen even if opera does win, because firefox is still around, AND open source!!!
- Like this
-
- by Vegaman_Dan January 19, 2009 1:51 PM PST
- If the EU gets their way, then Apple will be forced to sell OS X separate of the hardware since right now it comes bundled- you can't buy the hardware without the OS included and the OS isn't sold separately (only upgrades). But that does open up more revenue oppotunities for Apple as they could charge even more for the complete package really.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)