What the EU might force Microsoft to do
The European Union is considering forcing Microsoft to distribute rival browsers as part of Windows, the software maker disclosed in a regulatory filing this week.
As part of its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission filed on Thursday, the software maker offered more details on the EU's statement last week that it believes Microsoft's inclusion of a browser in Windows violates antitrust law.
Microsoft said that the EU is considering forcing computer makers, known as original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, to offer multiple browsers with new Windows PCs.
"While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC," Microsoft said in the SEC filing. "Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser."
Microsoft also noted that the EU is also seeking to "impose a significant fine based on sales of Windows operating systems in the European Union."
The company reiterated that it will have the opportunity to respond in writing in the next two months and, after that, could also request a hearing.
And that's not the only area where Microsoft faces further EU action. Microsoft confirmed that an investigation into Office may still be ongoing.
"In January 2008, the commission opened an additional competition law investigation that relates primarily to interoperability with respect to our Microsoft Office family of products," Microsoft said. "This investigation resulted from complaints filed with the commission by a trade association of Microsoft's competitors."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
It would be nice if the user would get prompted what web browser they desired at first boot when they purchase the machine, and i think this shouldnt be too painful to do, kind of like an OPK for oems, just hide IE 7 and allow the install of the competing browser.
I don't recall hearing of anyone in the entire world, must less the US, getting sued for serving one, or even two cups of coffee. Must of been in one of your caffeine induced dreams!
A woman burned herself with a hot coffee she got at McDonald's... and was awarded over $2.5 million. I'm assuming that's the story AppleProLeo is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
Unfortunately, I don't live in the US.. a country with a majority of white people... chose a colored person to lead them. I don't see this happening in Europe (where I'm originally from) for at least 15 to 20 years.
Now to the matter at hand... nobody cared for the special edition of Windows that the EU Commission forced to ship, stripped off Media Player.
So, the government in US also decides what compnies can and cannot do ;)
MS actually has gone further than simply including IE in Winblows. A lot of code is intermingled not to mention their non-compliance to web standards to ensure sites only work in IE and not other browsers - ASP in particular.
And don't assume that everyone is tech-aware, leave alone tech-capable. Just because they use computers doesn't mean they know (or should know) all the intricacies. These are the ones that will most likely use the defaults (furthering MS's cunning plans). So either require MS and the OEM's to not put in any browser or put in more than one and make the user select one for the 1st time.
No condoning MS practices. They should get what they deserve. It's a pity we can't get them to do the same here in the US.
The rest of the arguments I have heard so far are a bunch of sour grapes from rival companies. Microsoft should have every freaking right to bundle or not bundle anything it wants with its own product. And its bad business ethics for companies to lodge complaints to governments to try and force an edge for competition. If I were Microsoft I'd tell everyone to go to hell.
LOL, now this is just laughable:
"And don't assume that everyone is tech-aware, leave alone tech-capable. Just because they use computers doesn't mean they know (or should know) all the intricacies. These are the ones that will most likely use the defaults (furthering MS's cunning plans). So either require MS and the OEM's to not put in any browser or put in more than one and make the user select one for the 1st time."
Gee, thanks for speaking for millions of people. They might get pissed off knowing that there are a bunch of retarded MS haters out there that are actively trying to reduce choice for them. I wonder how many of those "tech-unaware" people out there would like buying an OS without a browser. By the way, it isn't as if it takes a genius to figure out how to use Explorer to download Firefox. Jesus! What's more, Windows doesn't stop anyone from doing it. If they did, then you might have a case for monopolization practices.
Cunning plans? Gee, yeah, those evil geniuses at Microsoft, how dare they include their own browser in their own product. Bastards! How dare they allow their own broswer to be used to download other browsers. Pure genius I tell you.
If they kept people from downloading Firefox/Chrome/Opera.... then it would be a good lawsuit... but again, WE DON'T HAVE THAT!
I'm sure you're very crazy, but not so techie.
However Microsoft services are just as browser compliant with 3rd party browsers as it is with IE. ASP is a web programming language just like PHP is so the only issue that would be at hand are the generated pages and those are in complete control of the developer of the code. Most ASP-based sites display fine in competing browsers including Firefox.
I'm actually against complicating the experience more just for the fact that alot of users are tech-handicapped. Alot of people don't know how to get around in the computer. They expect to turn on their computer and be able to get on the internet. I have worked in tech support for over 2 years and that is the mindset I get. On the other hand alot of these users have already begun to use or are able to move over to Firefox with minimal effort.
Now then should they be suing Apple because they force install Safari on all of their computers? I think that if OEM's should be made a requirement that they need to offer alternative browsers that Apple should be made to do so as well. It would only be fair all around.
If they win with their idea of bundiling other browsers out of the box, you'll soon have them requiring Microsoft to bundle other apps. WMP+iTunes+WinAMP for music, WMC+XBMC+Media Portal for media centered capabilities, Open Office+Office Trial for office apps, Notepad+Wordpad+Notepad++ for document editing... seesh and people already ***** about bloated OSes.
Right now, MSFT forces OEMs (by way of "marketing campaign funds") to limit OEMs to "recommending" anything Windows tells them to.
Why not let the user choose at startup which web browser to use?
Stop repeating that lie! I've called you out on it before, and you've been unable to present any proof or article or anything *whatsoever* linking marketing campaign funds to browser choice. I repeat -- STOP LYING. This is the 3rd time in 10 days that you've repeated this lie, and the third time I'm calling you out, and the third time you're going to be unable to provide any proof/references.
On to your second question:
"Why not let the user choose at startup which web browser to use?"
1. The OEM is free to do that
2. The OEM is free to offer the choice at the time of purchase if they wish
3. The OEM is free to simply install a different browser and set it as default if they wish
4. The customer is free to install any browser they want no matter what they get from the OEM.
5. MS cannot speak for other companies' products -- it is not their burden to do all the compatibility testing, security testing etc. that would be necessary to have multiple browsers.
6. You would be increasing the bloat on a system.
7. You would need update mechanisms for more browsers
8. If you unify all the updates into windows update you'll increase the volume of windows update data.
9. You have a larger attack surface because you have more software than necessary present by default.
10. Even if you make all of this happen, you're increasing the cost of Windows for everyone, when most people are happy with just one browser.
There is simply no reason to force MS to install multiple browsers. Choice exists aplenty. You are merely pushing a political agenda. You are projecting your dislike of MS and IE onto the rest of the market. You have no altruistic motive and no informed insight on the matter -- just an all-encompassing hatred that makes you keep repeating lies. Grow up!
"There is simply no reason to force MS to install multiple browsers. Choice exists aplenty.!
He claims things Microsoft would be ordered to do, e.g. ship other browsers but he hasn't seen the statement of objections. Actually no one forces "MS to install multiple browsers.". As I understand it is a 100% bullet proof competition case. You cannot get your product, IE, an unfair advantage. Tying it illegal, no need to argue about this, because this is what the law says.
As of OEMs I am sure there must be a reason why the OEMs don't install other browsers, but I guess the Commission has additional evidence of malpractice for starting the case now.
Let's face it: If Microsoft is unable to meet the obligations under competitions law on the European Market, it does not need to sell here. If it does, it needs to obey to the market rules that apply to all of us.
Seems to be very difficult for Microsoft. Microsoft goes political and demagogic because it cannot win the case on legal grounds.
Tell you what - how about you explain why Dell "recommends" Vista on their products, in spite of Michael Dell openly admitting that they would love to be able to sell OSX instead. How about explaining how those Vista stickers got on their products (oh, and on HP's products and website while you're at it...)
The minute the OEM drops any such campaign and disobeys MSFT, they stand to lose a metric ton of money in marketing funds. Money the competition simply does not have, and in a thin-margin business like OEM, you take what you can get.
BTW - Firefox weighs in at less than 32MB as a download package. Considering that Vista sucks down 10,000MB or so of disk space, I doubt that there's going to be any "bloat" involved. Also, only the consumer's choice would make it to the hard disk if they got to choose at install time - the rest would simply sit unused on the install disk, get deleted automatically, or whatever (just like Linux, come to think of it).
1. I said "MS *should not* be forced to bundle multiple browsers -- I didn't say that they are currently being forced.
2. The case is not bulletproof -- far from it in fact. It's a fallacy to think of IE as a seperate product -- think of it as an OS component. You need this 'OS component' to get access to 'apps' such as webmail, social networking, online banking etc. These apps are so pervasive, that an OS without this component is an incomplete OS. Hence. bunding IE with Windows makes perfect sense.
3. You are "sure" there must be a reason OEMs don't install other browsers, and you "guess" the commission must have additional evidence that backs this up? Can you think of any reason the EU has not mentioned this in the statement of objections?
4. Finally -- MS is going political? MS integrated a browser into their OS -- that's political??
"you explain why Dell "recommends" Vista on their products, in spite of Michael Dell openly admitting that they would love to be able to sell OSX instead"
>> Apple does not license OS-X to Dell. Apple sues OEMs that sell machines with OS-X preinstalled. Google psystar for proof. (see how I added some concrete proof btw).
"How about explaining how those Vista stickers got on their products (oh, and on HP's products and website while you're at it...)"
>> what am I supposed to explain -- I don't see the problem here. What has this got to do with limiting browser choice? Do the stickers tell us that MS won't let Dell/HP pre-install FF? How did you tie that last part together?
"The minute the OEM drops any such campaign and disobeys MSFT, they stand to lose a metric ton of money in marketing funds. Money the competition simply does not have, and in a thin-margin business like OEM, you take what you can get."
>> There you go again. Repeating the lie, without any proof. Stop. Lying.
As to FF, 32MB, etc. etc. -- you're explaining just one scenario and answering just one point -- bloat. That's not a *justficiation* of why MS should bundle other browsers. I listed some significant issues why bundling other browsers is a bad idea -- and the best one you can argue aganst is bloat?
Of course, Vista never actually booted up once, I didn't even give it a chance to live for a second. It is happily running opensuse 11.1 and all of the laptop functionality worked out of the box including wireless, the very nice soundcard/speakers/subwoofer(yes, on a freaking laptop), gigabit ethernet, and the built in webcam.
Anyway, nope no browser choice and of course IE can not be removed.
Penguin, Wake up and smell the coffee! Dhevleak is correct. OEM's have had the choice of installing any browser they desire to be distributed with windows for over 10 years. OEM's are also free to install any OS they so desire. STOP YOUR STUPID LIES.
proof: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/January/017.htm
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=anavml&ST=dell%20linux%20desktop&dgc=ST&cid=35221&lid=916687&acd=52183,8,0,61473479,600983730,1232983972,,12144268,2510837481
On the other hand, it the purpose of the EU action is to extract more money from Microsoft because its member governments need to balance their budgets .....
The thing that *****es off the dumb suckers in the EU is that MS is bundling an OS in their OS. Nobody in the EU bothered to develop one that got universal acceptance like MS did, so all they can do is whine like girly men and continue to seek payoffs from MS under the guise of some imagined law being broken. The EU officials are just on a shake-down mission.
2. IE has code, that if removed, will break Windows. Think about that and all the implication, mainly security, if you can. This is the reason IE get owned so often.
You simply have no understanding of the technical issues, so it seems to you like it is a "shake-down mission". It is not, in fact, if MS would forced to pull IE out of kernel space, things would improve for them immeasurably.
The EU is doing them a favor.
Secondly, if Windows Explorer is removed, it will 'break Windows'.... I don't see you advocating that so that a third party file browser can be installed, now are you?
Thirdly, IE does NOT run in kernel space. It makes kernel calls SOMETIMES while running SOME code... just like any other program does... this is not a conspiracy thing, and that's coming from someone who is ALWAYS seeing conspiracies everywhere.
In fact, WE actually uses IE.
IE gets raped daily because of this.
Wouldn't it be ironic if despite being carried on OEM computer people still didn't choose Opera.
Here's what they are really after:
"impose a significant fine based on sales of Windows operating systems in the European Union."
They need a source of income, so their adding extra tax against Microsoft and likely other successful US companies like Google or Apple...
And here I thought this wasn't about revenge or hatred, but about consumer choice..
re-read your own statement. How do you equalize what WAS ONCE an unequal market? The market has done a fine job of leveling the playing field. MS share has dropped every year because people found that IE wasn't innovating anymore. FF and Opera, to a much lesser extent, have capitolized on this.
Fact is, this case is about revenge and extorting more money from msft based on the same strategy they used with media player. If this was about choice, then the EU should return their previous fine. Forcing a company to sell a product that no one wants is an artificial choice. It doesn't help anyone, except the EU (courtesy of the massive fine). Consumers are NOT better off now that msft sells windows sans media player, because no one wants it.
Microsoft shouldn't be blamed and fined for the poor business models of mozilla and opera. Why anyone would work so hard to give away a product in a market of free choices is beyond me. Altruism is for suckers. Let the free market reign here, it is already working!
Now, if the EU wanted to mandate compliance to an accepted standard....that I could get on board with.
Once it is removed from the kernel, countless problems will magically disappear.
IE has always been a User mode process (as opposed to Kernel mode process) running in the context of the logged in user. In Vista it has become an even less privileged process and even runs sandboxed now. There are many more security improvements for IE that I could list, but suffice it to say that IE has never been a part of the Windows kernel.
I see you drink the MS kool-aid. Good for you,
You do realize that many exploits for XP SP2/3 and Vista use the fact it has kernel level permissions, right?
Otherwise you are just trolling.
Then explain why IE can not be uninstalled without breaking Windows.
Of course the browser war is just plain stupid. I would prefer one browser, one standard. I don't like having two, maybe three browsers to go surfing the net. I'm not a complete IT guy, I don't care about all the difference in scripting and whatever, I just don't like my system overloaded with redundant software.
Here's a normal user's plea for a ONE browser, ONE media player world. I don't care who makes it, as long as it works! (Here's an interesting bit about Windows Media Player 12 w/ Win 7, it plays mp4 video files. That let me avoid having to install iTunes, just to watch a few vids.)
Oh, and for playing files like that.... there is a way to do that - CCCP Codec Pack, KMPlayer, or K-Lite Codec Pack.
With one of those three things (the first and last being codec packs and second being a media player)... even WMP can play every single file type out there.
Follow the standards and the browser is irrelevent(except for IE which still sometimes needs hacks to get it to render correctly).
There is one standard. Everyone but MS tries to comply to it. Follow the standards and the browser is irrelevent(except for IE which still sometimes needs hacks to get it to render correctly).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo. The reason this is being discussed is because M$ has fought long and hard AGAINST standards and for their own proprietary mess. Removing IE from winblows is impossible because it's so tightly tied into the OS and using IE is impossible on other platforms (thankfully - at least there is one bit of good news about this lock-in garbage!) because M$ doesn't build it for other platforms (their one and only gift to the world).
IE needs to be outlawed. Nothing before it in the world has so deserved to be taken behind the woodshed and shot until it's no longer moving, burned until it's expunged of all evil then buried under 12 feet of peat moss and sealed under another 12 feet of concrete to protect our children from it's evil. Yes, it's really that bad (actually worse!).
Notice it's the browser of choice for admitted pedophiles (if I have to name him, you haven't been paying attention). Ironic, isn't it? Maybe the evils of IE have a use after all!
CAPITALISM IS DIEING!
CAPITALISM IS DIEING!"
Capitalism? The foundation of Microsoft's business model is copyrights, patents, and trademarks, all forms of artificial monopoly that would not exist in a free market and that are wholly CREATED by government. Those government-created monopolies create an artificial scarcity where in a truly free market none exists. Microsoft of course expands the monopolies thus granted with moving target interoperability barriers and forced upgrades.
The company also has a solid record of illegally leveraging one monopoly into another via bundling and tying of products to Windows desktop. Microsoft allows others to pioneer new markets, e.g., media players, shell file managers, and browsers, then bundling its own with Windows to kill middleware threats to its hegemony.
In addition to the legal fiction of intellectual (non-existent) property bestowed by government, Microsoft's managers also enjoy the benefits of another legal fiction created by government, the corporate form of doing business. In the words of a Supreme Court decision, "a corporation is a fictional entity having existence only in the eyes of the law."
Now if you have ever met a corporation, changed a corporation's diapers, or kissed one, you might have grounds to argue that corporations are not artificial entities. But in reality, a corporation boils down to a form of doing business where the owner's liability for the wrongs committed by corporate officers and employees are limited by law to the amount invested. I.e., Microsoft would not even exist had the government not intervened in the free market to proclaim the existence of corporations.
This has little to nothing to do with capitalism. It is a lucrative house of cards built on the legal fiction that ideas, methods, and concepts can be owned and the fiction that non-existent entities are endowed with human rights. Since it is a government-created house of cards, I see no sound theoretical basis for arguing that government should not be free to tweak its own creations.
Do you have anything more informed to offer than shouting an inapt slogan?
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071019/eric-talk-demo-windows-7-minwin/
Jeez, Microsoft sells a product that generally works pretty well. People ought to be able to buy their product without some governement with too much free time 'protecting' them.
Audi is no monopolist. Microsoft is in legal terms. The case is rock-solid, this is why they attempt to influence public opinion. But laws in Europe are not made by American companies. If you sell on our market obey or leave. But don't be so impolite and criticise our market rules, Microsoft.
I highly recommend using command prompt as your OS. It has absolutely nothing preinstalled but the OS. Oh and by the way, Microsoft is not a monopolist. It merely holds a natural monopoly over the PC OS market.
The US courts held that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist.
A monopoly is not necessarily bad, but the Microsoft monopoly has proved to be.
Then, add an icon to the desktop that would be the classic Internet Explorer icon but would actually download the browser
as it would not be installed in the first place. That is what I would do if I were M$.
But in case that I was not evil, I would offer the choice between the standard 4 - 5 [IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, ] browsers during the activation period of the computer.
Everyone is free to remove the software they don't want...
- by Super2online January 23, 2009 8:59 PM PST
- It appears to me that there will be no end to how far the EU takes this kind of preditory protectionist governing.. Just let anyone complain about anything that competes, and they are off and running again. They might as well be saying, "Is there anyone else...Is there anyone else that would like to complain about anything else, so we can fleece this company for everything we can get out of them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by massfat January 24, 2009 11:22 AM PST
- I suggest launching lawsuits involving high treason against humanity/evolution, extortion, human rights infringement, torture, slander, use of force and coercion, etc
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (133 Comments)At what point does the government for the victimized company take a serious look at this over zealous litigating government and tell them, if you continue down this path it may be prudent for us to examine your protectionist practices and begin lobbing international regulatory bodies to consider appropriate legislative measures to prevent these kinds of abuses.