Don't expect Obama to object to Windows' browser
While European regulators are showing a continued interest in regulating Microsoft, the Obama administration may have its sights set elsewhere.
In a speech in June, the woman nominated to be the new administration's antitrust chief said that Google, not Microsoft, is the big competitive worry.
"For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem," Christine Varney said at a June 19 panel, according to Bloomberg News, which unearthed the comments this week. In the same speech, Varney said that Google poses a threat because it already "has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising."
Obviously, those comments were made long before Obama's victory and her nomination, so it's not exactly administration policy. That said, it seems unlikely that Obama would have picked her if he was looking for someone to go after Redmond.
Varney, who has been working as a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, did not return a call from Bloomberg News seeking comment. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told Bloomberg News that the president nominated Varney "to vigorously enforce the law" and "is confident that she can do so in a fact-specific and evenhanded way with every matter she will face."
It's not as if Varney is a blind Microsoft loyalist, either. Bloomberg noted that Varney once lobbied the Clinton administration on behalf of Netscape urging antitrust action against Microsoft.
But, Varney said, times have changed. She pointed to Google as the current threat with its monopoly in online advertising. That position, though lawfully obtained could give the company too much control over the emerging world of cloud computing, she said in the June speech.
"When all our enterprises move to computing in the clouds and there is a single firm that is offering a comprehensive solution," Varney said, again according to Bloomberg. "You are going to see the same repeat of Microsoft."
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Varney's updated world view has not taken hold in Europe, which last month issued a preliminary finding that the inclusion of a browser within Windows violated its antitrust laws. Microsoft cautioned in a regulatory filing last month that Europe might force Microsoft to distribute multiple browsers with Windows and perhaps even disable some Internet Explorer code if a user selects a different browser.
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. 
Google has a dominant share of online advertising, but can't be called amonopoly because no one is compelled to buy ads in Google, other than that they offer very competitive terms and reach because of their relatively advanced technology and worldview that others seem to have missed.
Maccess, Nobody is "forced" to buy Windows either. But MS was convicted as such. Now look at the Apple ecosystem, now that is being forced. Cannot pick your hardware. Cannot pick your OS. Cannot pick your upgrades, Seems pretty closed minded doesnt it? When comparing it with the MS ecosystem.
As for being 'forced' to buy Windows.... you have to look at a bit bigger picture than your choice in boxen. If you buy a Ford, you largely have to buy Ford parts... but Ford doesn't decide that a Chevy can't drive on the highway or not. Yes, if I buy Apple I have to buy, at least initially, their hardware (then all the peripherals are my choice). However pre-trials, M$ was saying an Apple or Unix user, or someone using something other than IE couldn't really surf the Internet. They were saying that if you want to work with anyone doing word processing, you had to own a copy of Word. They were forcing hardware manufacturers to only offer machines with Windows (not their own brand of PC, which, like Apple, would have been totally legitimate). They have been found guilty of making code to break their software and cause OS issues on what they provided to non-Windows platforms. The list goes on. Proprietary isn't the problem.... abuse of monopoly is. If M$ made a PC, put Windows only on it, and made apps which only ran on this PC... I'd have no complaints at all. It is when they start messing with the entire rest of the computer market that I take issue.
How many times has this man been bought and paid for?
WOW, that's awesome. A problem that was never dealt with last century. I guess Microsoft sure paid off the right people since they're the ones supposedly competing with Google.
Even though a comment like that shows that Microsoft is less relevant (which is true) it also says 'crime pays'. Time should never wipe out a crime. If Microsoft ultimately profits from illegal behavior, then they are setting the precedent for others to follow. Abuse your monopoly and you can ultimately profit from doing so.
Maybe something like the "Fair EULA Act". Yeah, right - that'll be the day.
Firefox works better than Internet Explorer.
The same reason IE took market share from Netscape.
Umm... NOT! Were you around back then? What M$ did was to give it away for free with a bunch of non-standard HTML calls. The reason it 'worked better' is because M$ wasn't following the HTML standards and through 'free-ness' was able to swing many web-site builders to use its tools. They basically used their monopoly to cheat and put actual Internet apps out of business with their proprietary 'faux-web' app.
The only thing that will ever really take them down is the global population to wise up and use alternatives. But since most people are ignorant about computers, or completely apathetic, that will never happen. So, we need governments to step in. They are FINALLY putting the squeeze on Micro$oft in Europe. We need them to do it here too. For starters, the U.S. Government needs to phase out Microsoft products, moving to open source perhaps. How can the US Government go after Micro$oft when they are one of its biggest customers?!
BSD, opensolaris, Darwin, Linux, take your pick. Hell, use Mac OS X, anything but Windows.
Steve: Another reason not to take anyone who writes Microsoft as M$ seriously.
Using the $ in text referring to Microsoft is a typographical tool to show the disgust with their strong-arm, greedy, monopolistic motives.
Ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this site as per the terms of use statement. Pleas refrain from using them.
Netscape became a lesser browser only when it was realized that IE was growing faster and it really seemed pointless to compete. IE was gaining market share even when Netscape was better. It didn't really make that much difference how good or bad Netscape was, IE was the browser of choice for newbies because that is what they were given in their OS.
I agree- everything should be free and open. Any instance of resistance should be squashed. All will be open! All will follow the one true path! Nobody shall stop us from our goal of supremacy!
Oh, and we can all wear arm bands and goose step with the rest of our brothers as we make the government destroy all competition and freedom of thought.
Wow. I do hope you see the irony and satire here.
I see the irony but you can make the same argument for Microsoft.
"All should be Microsoft" which is true when it comes to desktop computing.
However if it seems that people have to force people to use something, then at least free and open is better than products from a greedy monopolist who creates third rate products.
Netscape became a lesser browser only when it was realized that IE was growing faster and it really seemed pointless to compete."
Really? I was there. Netscape was rubbish. It didn't get any worse because IE became popular, it was rubbish in comparison to 4.0 because they kept ballsing up the features on it . And, to make things worse, they still wanted to charge for it!
Don't call people ignorant if you don't know what you're talking about, son. It was good riddance to bad rubbish.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/7/22/ms/
Wise up Varney, and you too America!
Common line from all conspiracy theorists. Let me guess the Jews are behind it all right? lol
- Microsoft can easily afford a few hundred million, as opposed to bein banned from Europe
- the EU member countries only half support it, especially given the many that don't like it
- the EU has little real power: it just wants to be like the United States, but get there without any hard work or producing any new products or anything of the sort. It's just a whiney wannabe, kinda like the UN.
No Ballmer did it, in the study with a pipe wrench!!! You putz's need a reality check. Xfile ended in the 90's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to believe.
Hmm...funny. I was under the impression that Google was only doing textual advertisements. When did they suddenly get involved with Flash Advertisements? Image Advertisements? Silverlight Advertisements? Streaming Video Advertisements?
How can they have a monopoly over something so broad as "Internet Online Advertising" if they're only generating ads via 1 medium (text)?
They even got their ads finally going in YouTube.
Microsoft, on the other hand, still have a monopoly on Windows, IE and Office. They recently cheated their way to make OOXML a standard.
If by iffy, you mean completely unethical to the point it should be the real target of the EU rather than having a browser bundled with Windows, then I completely agree.
I'd rather see choice from the very beginning. The online world is not one size fits all, neither is the software one. Freedom of choice is a very precious freedom and should be protected.
I was there when netscape and ie were battling, and honest to god, i hated netscape and its not like now when browsers were free for download, the extra cost brought me nothing more useful.
Even if ie was not bundled back then eg. need to purchase, i would still stay away from netscape if they were the same price.
really, netscape would've done more horrible things imho like ms.
i use opera now, got too used to mouse gestures now im having a hard time trying to use other browsers lol
- by brickman5721 February 19, 2009 12:00 PM PST
- I can't wait until I can "compute in the clouds". Sounds liberating. Seriously, people who don't understand what they're talking about shouldn't be allowed to speak.
- Reply to this comment
-
(54 Comments)