Report: Microsoft, EU in talks over antitrust issues
Microsoft has had "preliminary talks" with European Union officials with the hopes of settling several regulatory probes, according to a Bloomberg report.
According to the report, Microsoft is aiming to settle the matters before EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes steps down at the end of the year. One issue is the EU's well-publicized concern over the bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows, while the other pertains to Office software, Bloomberg said.
The EU earlier this year issued a preliminary finding that the inclusion of a browser in the operating system violated European antitrust law and has been exploring a variety of potential remedies, including forcing Microsoft to distribute rival browsers with its operating system.
Last month, CNET News reported that Microsoft was planning to ship Windows 7 in Europe only in versions that had the browser feature removed, aiming to sidestep regulatory action. However, both the EU and rivals issued concern over that approach.
As for the Office inquiry, Microsoft has said it was opened in January 2008 and resulted from complaints filed by a trade association of Microsoft's competitors.
An EU spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report of settlement talks and a Microsoft representative declined to comment. Both Microsoft and an EU spokesman declined to comment in the Bloomberg report.
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. 
The US should ban the sale of all Mercedes until they include other radios in their cars preinstalled. The US can make demands and force the OEM to concede to our wishes, or else face stiff fines of.. oh... say $10 million per day they fail to do so? Maybe that money could be used to help save our own auto industry.
That's the problem with car anologies - they tend to be over-simplified, and rarely fit the issue at hand (and at this rate, they'll overtake Godwin's Law in very short order).
I'm not aware that a radio is required to drive from Point A to point B. I'm not even sure why you brought that up. An engine is required to drive from Point A to point B.
A browser is not required to be part of the OS either.
You *do* have to get a radio with your Mercedes. They do not offer the vehicles without them anymore. That stopped in the late 70's / early 80's. Yes, you can remove the stock radio and put in your own . That would be why this is an excellent analogy for browsers.
I appreciate you trying to dismiss the car analogy, but it just doesn't work with the information you provided.
Try your own anology if you so wish. The point being that the EU has decided for their member countries what they will or will not be allowed and not allowing consumers to make that decision for themselves.
"You *do* have to get a radio with your Mercedes"
You're dodging the issue - no part of the radio is required to get the car from point A to point B. If you remove all traces of the factory radio, you can still drive the car, no sweat. If you remove all traces of IE out of Windows, your computer won't boot the next time you restart it. That was by design since the mid-1990's, in spite of not being necessary at all.
QED: car analogies can get pretty dumb.
Microsoft was convicted for breaking anti-trust law in both the US and the EU for doing this, so trying to paint a jingoistic picture of the EU government is kind of silly (there's plenty of other reasons to sneer at the EU (and US) governments, but honestly this ain't one of them).
2. Face it. What you claim as "all traces" of a browser is very subjective and I've just shown that your interpretation is not reasonable (see above #1).
Why don't you put on your thinking cup, and come up with something better?
Let's face it, the EU bureaucrats are behaving like a bunch of Soviet style communist commisairs. What is even more annoying is, it's American companies like the notorious Google who have been the chief instigators of this EU witch hunt, intimidation, and outright terrorism of an American company.
Did Mercedes break the law?
No?
Microsoft did.
That's why Microsoft has to carry competitors, and not Mercedes. See the Coca Cola case, where they had to carry competitors as well because they broke the law. And dozens of other such cases.
But I guess Microsoft should get special treatment, and not have to face the consequences of their actions, eh?
The point of his post was that EU's brand of antitrust law/regulation makes no sense.
Its not breaking the law when every other OS does the same damn thing.
Answer: YES they did.
From the New York Times:
"DaimlerChrysler was fined in 2001 for breaking EU free-trade laws by instructing Mercedes-Benz dealers in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium not to sell to bargain hunters from other EU countries between 1985 and 1996"
.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-auto.html?_r=1
@ plings: "Microsoft did. "
So did Mercedes.
@ plings:"That's why Microsoft has to carry competitors, and not Mercedes."
That's why if the rabid, anti-American EU wants Microsoft to carry Google's browser(after suspected bribes to EU officials by Google), then they should force Mercedesand countless other EU firms that have been found guilty of anti-trust violations, to carry their competitor's products as well. Why the special, EU state sponsored terrorism towards Microsoft?
Not to mention, in any civilised country,where there is rule of law, when one is fined for so-called "breaking the law", that's it. There is something called double jeapardy. You can't prosecute/fine/jail someone twice for the same crime, let alone 20 times like the EU is doing.
What planet is this on it sure as hell is not here.
But it doesn't reflect on business/enterprise markets at all.
Here's some reading for you:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html
The author has some pretty serious credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Economics 101 indeed..
Here's a fact for you:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/149654,microsoft-faces-more-eu-anti-trust-probes.aspx
It's just a trip to the ATM dude.
Quote: "An executive close to the case said the EU wants to complete its Microsoft antitrust investigations before Kroes stands down in order to avoid an ineffectual outcome, like in 2004."
See what I mean about Neelie Kroes having an agenda? What makes her think she's more capable/fair than the previous or next commissioners?
The EU is higly profitable.
Actually, the EU doesn't "complain". It simply enforces its laws, which Microsoft broke.
Once again, the point of his post was that EU's brand of antitrust law/regulation makes no sense.
Exactly what "law" is that?
Why don't you tell us, since you pretend to know the law so much?
Did the EU nor already fine Microsoft over $1 billion dollars for this so-called "breaking the law?
Is it not the norm in civilised soceities, where the rule of law is preserved, that you can't prosecute anyone entity more than once for the same "offence", and fine/terrorise someone like countless times for "breaking" the same law once?
Why is the EU not constantly terrorising European firms like Mercedes Benz, who have been found guilty of anti-tust violations too?
New York Times:
"DaimlerChrysler was fined in 2001 for breaking EU free-trade laws by instructing Mercedes-Benz dealers in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium not to sell to bargain hunters from other EU countries between 1985 and 1996."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-auto.html?_r=1
@Kwasiowusu: Microsoft violated competition law. Article 82. Ignorant much?
This is the second time you're saying that now.
The US does antitrust law very differently. Both sides get to represent themselves, and a judge hears the case and makes a decision. That's a balanced legal system. In the EU the commissioner is judge, jury, and executioner.
" by plings July 9, 2009 9:38 AM PDT
Even Microsoft agrees with EU competition law. They have said so, and they have actively used it against Google by filing complaints against them. Microsoft clearly broke the law, so starting to spread FUD about antitrust law in the EU is nothing but a pathetic red herring."
you do releaize that GOOGLE constantly uses EU against the Microsoft right? like when they tried to block the MS yahoo deal not to mention GOOGLE wieghed in on the realplayer mediaplery fiascio or the current browser deal
MS is just returning the favor by blocking what would've been a actual monoply of google/yahoo venture which many advertisers actually protested against
This solution would:
1. provide all browser vendors equal access to end users.
2. eliminate any potential burden on Microsoft, to maintain a list of competitor browsers & to distribute them.
I like the solution, but it's just not realistic with groups like the EU.
Why on earth should Microsoft give control of what goes into their operating system to yet another bunch of bureacrats, this time, the W3C?
Microsoft has done the right thing by simply removing the browser from Windows 7 in the EU. If Google want to put their browser on anyone's computer, let them find their own way to do it.
It would be ridiculous for Microsoft to put Google Crhome, Firefox or whatver intoW indows 7. It's not Microsoft''s job to make Google and Google shareholders even richer than they are already.
America!! America!! America!!
America should ban Opera. But who is using it?
See ?
Don't forget that the Browser was invented in Europe in a basement.
No it wasn't. The WWW was.
More importantly, the internet, which made all this possible, was invented in the good, old USA.
And EU Commissioner Nellie Kroes IS trash. I am calling it as I see it.
I'm with RompStar_420 on this -- people need to be more civil. That includes you, going by your comments regarding 'rednecks' earlier. You know what they say about glass houses, stones, etc.
Besides -- how many times are you going to repeat that silly line about 'they broke the law'? EU's brand of antitrust regulation itself is being called into question here -- the appropriate rebuttal is a defense of the regulations themselves -- not a robotic repetition that the regulations were broken.
Ummm..there is something called double jeaopardy. The EU has already fined (extorted will be more like it) Microsoft over a billion dollars for so-called "anti-trust violations". You can't prosecute and fine someone twice for the same offence, just because Google keps stuffing millions of Euros into the pockets of corrupt EU officials.
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
1. Does the EU have "double jeopardy"?
2. Microsoft was never convicted of browser bundling in the EU, so your "double jeopardy" nonsense is irrelevant anyway, and just exposes your lack of knowledge.
If they don't why the heck have you posted this "Microsoft broke the law: garbage at least 5 timeso n this thread then?
@ plings : "Microsoft was never convicted of browser bundling in the EU, so your "double jeopardy" nonsense is irrelevant anyway
So explain to me which law you are referring to when you kept posting your "Microsoft broke the law", over and over again on this thread, in a vain, pathtic attempt at trolling?
There is nothing illegal about putting a browser in your operating system. Every single operating system on the planet comes with a browser, and they don't inlcude browsers of their bitter rivals either.
If you rob a house and get thrown in jail, and when you get out you rob another house and are thrown in jail again, is that double jeaopardy? Hardly. You broke the law twice, you got punished twice.
Just like this case is about the browser market, not about the previous Windows Media Player case.
We heard you the first time.
We heard you the second time.
We heard you the fifteenth time.
The argument is that EU's application of antitrust law itself is questionable. You need to defend that instead.
But I guess it's only "whining" when it is the EU which is enforcing its own laws?
Read this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html
Antitrust regulation is far from being a black-and-white law. Economists themselves are divided as to whether or not it's required. The application of antitrust law varies hugely even within the EU from one commissioner to the next. Neelie Kroes has been setting all kinds of records with her relentless pursuit of companies over the shallowest of pretexts and with the most ridiculous fines. The single worst part of the the EU/EC's implementation of antitrust regulation is that one single person (Kroes) gets to be judge/jury/executioner. And if you appeal a decision -- well, it gets heard by the exact same person again (Kroes). That's a very fundamental flaw that gives a single person the ability to sway the market according to their ideology. And Kroes definitely has an agenda.
So don't kid yourself. Anyone frustrated with the EU's heavy handed antitrust regulations has a very valid point.
I'll refrain from redundant posts since this is the 3rd time you're posting the exact same nonsense.. just see my comments above..
Whether you agree with the law or not, it's still the law, and everyone else has to follow the law. Why shouldn't Microsoft?
Your claims about extortion are insane, considering that Microsoft has previously been complaining to EU antitrust authorities over Google, and vice versa.
Everyone is questioning the law itself. Defend that. Get it into your thick skull that people are calling the EU's antitrust handling into question.
plings. get a life.
So what you are saying is that Microsoft should cut off its nose to spite its face.
Never mind the fact that Microsoft actually broke the law! [CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
There's that line again -- that MS broke the law. 5th time and counting. You've now qualified as a troll. Never mind that you're repeating your racist comments all over again without any provocation.
So did Mecedes Benz. Now why don't you fo get your pal, the Eurotrash Neelie Kroes to force Mercedes to include the products of their rivals, in Mrecedes cars.
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Whether Mercedes broke the law or not is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
"I thought Europe invented whining, not the browser?"
They also invented the web to help people display to the world how ludicrous they can be. Now for the whining it is US companies (Sun, AMD, etc) which regularly come to Europe after that the US corrupted justice looked the other way about illegal practices from Microsoft or Intel.
@ Jim1900
"The sooner MS dumps Europe, the better off they will be."
Not clear why you aren't a CEO in any company yet.
Since the EU bureaucracy is easily the most corrupt outfit of it's kind on the planet, going to the EU to fight against percieved corruption at the DOJ would be the laughable wouldn't it?
I remember some years back, when the entire batch of EU commisioners were FORCED to resign because of rampant corruption, nepotism, bribery, and every kind of sleaze know to man.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/commissioners-under-threat-from-eu-sleaze-revelations-580744.html
Do we even know how may corrupt EU officials have been bribed by the deep pocketed Google in all this?
"The bend of a banana must be ?the thickness of a transverse section of the fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, must be at a minimum of 27mm(1.06ins). "
Ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article6609953.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/bodybuilding-law/laught-stupid-american-laws-112111.html
Guess it's OK when it's in the US!
Hypocrites.
Just read the antitrust suit by EU for bSkyB and what's the result is to consumers. If you read about it, you will know that EU antitrust laws are stupid to the core. Nelllie Kroes can buzz off for all I care. She only knows how to make consumers suffer.
There is no entity of it's kind/size on the planet, that is as stupid, ********, vicious,corrupt and moronic as the EU bucreacracy is.[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
The EU is the only big goverment organisation in history, where the ENTIRE, and EVERY SINGLE EU COMMISIONER, was forced TO RESIGN en massr, because of corruption, bribery, nepotism, and every kind of crime known to man, and even then the new comisioners continued on their corrupt ways anyways:
The Independent, UK:
"Four years after a sleaze row destroyed the previous European Commission, prompting its unprecedented mass resignation, the nightmare has returned to haunt its successor.
Tomorrow an official report will explain how as much as ?920,000 (£640,000) was allowed to vanish from EU records and be channelled into a secret slush fund.
The case, which was described as the "looting" of Eurostat, the EU's statistical office, uncovered a catalogue of failings and provoked calls for the Spanish commissioner Pedro Solbes Mira - who is ultimately responsible for Eurostat - to resign"
The EU bureacracy isso full of thieves, they make Ali Baber and his 40 thieves look like the Boys Scouts.
@Kwasiowusu: Keep spreading your racist propaganda, dude! :D
Calling the EU bureacrats a bunch of sleazy, super corrupt, low lives, who have been found guilty of corruption, over and over again, (which just happens to be true) is "racist"?
Don't make me laugh.
Pretty rich cming from a European clown that came in here calling Americans "rednecks".
So anyone who agrees that Microsoft should follow the law is automatically from outside the US? LOL. Apparently your view of the US is rather pathetic. [CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Not one single post here said "MS should not have to follow the law". Nobody is suggesting that.
People are suggesting that the EU's brand of antitrust law isn't fair. People are arguing that Neelie Kroes has an agenda.
Does the European Commission knows the relevance of "Office" to the "Concorde" Flying Again - Commercially!
The bend of a banana must be ?the thickness of a transverse section of the fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, must be at a minimum of 27mm(1.06ins).
Ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article6609953.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
The woman basically did this to herself, but McD had to pay.
More stupid US laws:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/bodybuilding-law/laught-stupid-american-laws-112111.html
But I guess it's OK when it's in the US!
Hypocrisy is strong with this one.
"US bureacrats(sic) are well known crackpots. Consider this ruling about a woman spilling coffee on herself:
There where no bureaucrats involved, she was awarded a settlement by a jury of her peers.
As for the joke on a body building forum . . .
US bureacrats are well known crackpots. Consider this ruling about a woman spilling coffee on herself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
The woman basically did this to herself, but McD had to pay.
More stupid US laws:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/bodybuilding-law/laught-stupid-american-laws-112111.html
But I guess it's OK when it's in the US!
Hypocrisy is strong with this one.
1. I don't have time to research silly laws -- but I guarantee you there are silly laws, silly judgements, and plain nonsense like the McDonalds case in every single country.
2. Pointing out completely unrelated but silly court cases or laws is supposed to be a defense of the EU's antitrust law? How does that work?
Now why don't you read this, about your corrupt, sleazy, EU, eh?
Independnet UK:
"Four years after a sleaze row destroyed the previous European Commission, prompting its unprecedented mass resignation, the nightmare has returned to haunt its successor.
Tomorrow an official report will explain how as much as ?920,000 (£640,000) was allowed to vanish from EU records and be channelled into a secret slush fund.
The case, which was described as the "looting" of Eurostat, the EU's statistical office, uncovered a catalogue of failings and provoked calls for the Spanish commissioner Pedro Solbes Mira - who is ultimately responsible for Eurostat - to resign"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/commissioners-under-threat-from-eu-sleaze-revelations-580744.html
The real question is, just how mmany millions of Euros, in bribes, has Google liberally spread amongst the sleazy EU bureacracy, to get them to try and knee-cap Microsoft for the benefit of Google?
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Listen up kid. Your racist commentary is borderline hate-speech now. You're not just making an ass of yourself -- you appear to be European (from your comments) and you're portraying them in a very poor light. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for the way you're polarizing people here.
Have you tried this? I haven't had much of anything to do with IE on any of my computers since 98SE. It does require some time to remove, but it really makes your computer run a lot faster when no longer works. The first thing to remember is that Microsoft has IE embedded in the OS so they can keep your OS updated with the latest patches and updates, sell you the things you think you need that have a Microsoft logo on them as well as keep an eye on how you use your computer. Windows 7 has the option of shutting down IE, this doesn't remove it, but it no longer shows as the default browser, if you have it set that way.
I think the EU should start listening to the people who use Windows and not the companies who can't compete for what ever reason, having an OS without a browser installed at start up is really a bad thing, no updates without IE, as well as other problems, slow to load being one because the browser is not part of the OS. Not that that is a bad thing, I will wait an extra 30 seconds to get the browser up rather than use the Microsoft IE spyware browser. .
Thanks for admitting that Microsoft broke the law.
"I think the EU should start listening to the people who use Windows"
Irrelevant, since Microsoft broke the law.
"having an OS without a browser installed at start up is really a bad thing"
Did you even read the article? The EC wants a choice in browsers, not no browser. Geez.
"no updates without IE"
Really? Says who? I'm not using IE to get updates.
Again, putting a browser in an OS is NOT breaking any law.
Every OS on the planet comes with a browser, even smartphone OS's.
@ plings :"Irrelevant, since Microsoft broke the law"
Again, what law is that?
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
@ plings :"Did you even read the article? The EC wants a choice in browsers, not no browser."
Consumers can have any choice they want (nothing in Windows stops consumers from downloading any browser they want onto their computers), so far as Microsoft doesn't have to do Google's work for them and be forced to include Google's fast failing Chome in Windows. Microsoft is providing a level playing field by removing IE8 from Win 7 in the EU.
If Google wants to get Chrome onto consumer desktops/ laptops, they have to find their own way to do it. It's not Microsoft's business to make Google shareholders rich. Microsoft has it's own shareholders to look after, including me.
Correct. But abusing one's dominant position in one market to undermine competition in another market IS. [CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Earth to "pling"!! You there?
Listen up: Microosft has ALREADY REMOVED IE from Win 7. Get it?
So there is no "abusing one's dominant position in one market to undermine competition in another market"
IE is GONE from Win 7. No "abusing" to" enter another market" is taking place here. Get it?
Every single consumer OS today ships with a browser bundled in it. It's a basic expectation that all consumers have. That being the case, the standalone browser market is more like an "aftermarket". What are we penalizing MS for -- having good foresight?
Also, if you had the least bit of knowledge, you would have known that the EU never asked Microsoft to remove IE, as it does not think that is sufficient to restore the market.
If Microsoft has to ship Windows with Firefox/Chrome/Safari, with IE separated from Windows:
Google's upcoming Chrome OS must ship with Internet Explorer/Firefox/Safari, with Chrome separated from it, and
Apple OS must ship with Internet Explorer/Firefox/Chrome, etc.
The EU government is a bunch of greedy pigs. They don't care about "broken laws". They target Microsoft because Microsoft is an easy target. If the US government would tell them to back off, we'd be better off.
1. Microsoft broke the law. If Chrome OS does not break the law, there's no reason to punish Google.
2. Apple did not break the law either. But again, Microsoft did.
3. The EU didn't start this case. It was reported to them by someone else, and the EU looked into it. So much for your racist, xenophobic hate speech, eh?
By the way, Microsoft has filed antitrust complaints against other companies. But I guess it's OK as long as it's Microsoft? LOL, hypocrite.
Again, what law is that? [CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
@ plings:" If Chrome OS does not break the law, there's no reason to punish Google. "
This is not about "punishing" or "not punishing" Google. It's about making sure Microsft is not forced to carry Google in their backs by being made to put Google Chrome in Win 7. If Microsoft has even removed IE8 from Win 7 in Europe, why the heck should Microsoft put Chrome in Win 7?
@ plings:"Apple did not break the law either"
As it turns out, Apple HAS broken the law in EU countries before, inlcuding the latest Apple law breaking in an EU country Norway, just this year:
"Norway rules that its Apple iTMS breaks the law "
http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/88318
@ plings:"But again, Microsoft did"
Again, what law is that?
It's perefctly LEGAL to put a browser in an OS. Almost every OS has a browser in it.
@ plings:"It was reported to them by someone else, and the EU looked into it"
That doesn't make the EU's despicable , bullying, intimidatory behaviour towards Microsoft, any less outrageous. We all know the EU Commision is easily the most corrupt, bribr loving outfit of it's kind on the planet. Just how much has Google paid these corrupt EU bureaucrats to hold Microsoft down, while they kick it?
He also starts changing the subject by pointing to other companies who may have broken the law, and is too lacking in knowledge to realize that this is irrelevant to whether Microsoft broke the law or not.
Also, Norway is not part of the EU, LOL.
And apparently enforcing the law is "bullying and despicable". LOL.
Microsoft broke the law. That's their fault. Don't come whining when they are taken to task for their crimes.
Yeah?
I am sure you will let us know though, right?
So why don't you tell us what law Microsoft is breaking, by
# 1. Including IE in Win 7, like every other operating system out there.
And
# 2. REMOVING IE from Win 7 because of constant whinning and harrasment from the bureacratic thieves at the EU?
Better yet, users around the world can put on their "thinking caps" and switch to OS/2 Warp (Code-Base Windows) now eComStation along with Lotus Symphony which they can get for free instead of opening up their pocket books for Microsoft Office.
http://www.ecomstation.com/
What "law' is Microsoft breaking here? Every operating system comes with a browser. Putting a browser into an OS, is NOT breaking the law. In addition, of course Microsoft has even gone one step further and completely REMOVED IE from Win 7. The EU have no case.
Better yet, the EU could put their efforts into remedying the super high unemployment rates in Europe, the collapsing EU economies, high crime amongst the youth in Europe and a myriad of problems in the EU, instead of putting 100% of their efforts into terroriing US companies that have created thousands of jobs in the EU, like Microsoft.
I wonder why you keep denying Microsoft's violations of the law when you evidently don't even know the law!
Bundling a browser with an OS is not illegal, no. Bundling with a dominant product in order to gain dominance in a different market IS illegal.
Removing IE is not a sufficient remedy to restore the market. Microsoft only did it as a publicity stunt:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/microsoft_windows_7_ie_europe/
100% effort terrorizing US companies? LOL. Nice tin foil hat. Most of the companies taken to task for anti-competitive behavior by the EC are EUROPEAN companies.
Please site the competition law Microsoft is supposed to be breaking here will you?
@ plings :"Bundling a browser with an OS is not illegal, no. Bundling with a dominant product in order to gain dominance in a different market IS illegal. "
Bundling a brower in an OS is NOT illegal, but then Microsoft has even gone one extra mile, and REMOVED the browswer from Win7 altogether. Now THAT, is certainly not illegal. I'd like to see the criminal gang at the EU prove that it's illegal in court
@ plings :"Removing IE is not a sufficient remedy to restore the market. Microsoft only did it as a publicity stunt"
Removing IE from Win 7 happens to be totrally LEGAL. That's what counts. If the EU don't like it, they can go to court can't they? Lets see them prove that taking IE out of Win 7 is somehow a crime..in cour, given that it was the EU themselves that kept whinning about Microsoft putting IR in Win 7 in the first placet!
As I have already explained, removing IE is not sufficient to restore the damage Microsoft has done to the market with ther violations of the law.
I came to know about this EU issues very recently only. Read something in Wikipedia and all.
What I would like to know is , WHY EU WANTS IE OUT OF Win 7 ?
To be honest, i don't even get the point why people argue over these things :-/ .
People who don't want IE ,don't use it ? I've been a windows user for a long time now [5-10 years].
Never in my life IE popped up automatically without me accessing it :D .
And install Firefox,chrome or whatever browser of your choice [oh yes, u have to use IE for that,if u dont have the setup for another browser offline].
And I'd be grateful to anyone who would like to describe [or give a link] WHY ACTUALLY EU WANTS IE OUT AND HAVE ANOTHER BROWSER BY DEFAULT ?
It was MICROSOFT that chose to remove IE, against the EC's will. The EC wants Windows to come with actual choice in browsers, just like other convicted monopolists before Microsoft.
As for the answer you your other question, it's simple:
Microsoft abused its dominance in the operating system market, and undermined competition in the browser market.
This is illegal (against the law), and has caused irreparable damage to the browser market.
Since Microsoft broke the law, the company must be punished. And at the same time, one must restore competition to the market. This is best done by having actual choice in browsers, just like Coca Cola was forced to carry Pepsi in their fridges after their antitrust conviction.
They coulda fooled me. They have been using intimidation aginst Microsoft over IE8 in Windows for over a year.
@ plings :"It was MICROSOFT that chose to remove IE, against the EC's will"
Microsoft can choose to remove IE from Win 7 if they like. You see, Win7 happens to BELONG to Microsoft, see?
It's their property.Microsoft spends BILLIONS of dollars every year, develping Windows. Win 7 DOES NOT belong to the EU, see?
This is not communist Soviet Union under Stalin, where the communist Soviets shot anyone who refused to hand over their property to the communist state.
@ plings :"The EC wants Windows to come with actual choice in browsers, just like other convicted monopolists before Microsoft. "
Well the corrupt EU is not going to get that are they?
And there is nothing they can do about it. As it turns out, there is NO browser in Win 7 for Europe now, so they can't turn round and claim that Microsoft is forcing their browser on anyone can they?
Meanwhile, we Americans will continue to happily enjoy Win 7 with IE8 included. The 1.3 billion people in China (nearly twice as many people as there are in the EU) will get their Win 7 with IE 8 inlcuded. The Russins will get Win 7 with IE inlucuded. The 1 billion humans in India will get Win 7 with IE 8 included. The only people who are screwing themselves are the Europeans, and with Europes moribound population, the EU is gonna play an increasingly lesser role in world affairs
That would be a great summary if it wasn't so.. biased!
The EU wants money. Plain and simple. They're making a trip to their own personal ATM (Microsoft).
If the EU claims that bundling IE is an unfair advantage, then not bundling IE would correct that. They might force MS to bundle other browsers, but it would be a gross injustice if they did that.
And again -- plings -- the EU might want ponies on the desktop for all I care. That doesn't make their demands reasonable. Same case with bundling competing browsers.
@dhavleak: I have already refuted your conspiracy theory nonsense. Microsoft will only be fined if they refuse to follow the law. Not bundling IE does not repair the damage. At least educate yourself of the basic facts before commenting.
I don't care what the EU has stated. The corrupt EU, are going to have to prove in court, exactly what law Microsoft is breaking by removing IE from Win7 .
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
@ plings :"Also, no, Microsoft can not do whatever it wants to. Microsoft has to follow the law. "
I have REPEATEDLY demanded that you show me what law Microsoft is breaking, by removing IE from Win 7 and you have equallty repteatedly refused to site any such law.
Mere threats and intimidation by the EU thugs and hired guns like you,instead of of proper rule of law, is simply not going to work this time.
Microsoft isn't breaking any laws by removing IE. I never claimed that they did. So quit it with the desperate straw men. The point is that simply removing IE isn't sufficient to restore the damage Microsoft did to the market.
so, u really think it helps u to say that, what, 20 times?
i dont buy the have to bundle other browser crap, because if that is the case osx + safari would really be double standard, then again i know some of u will start saying they dont have a "monopoly" with that... i just dont see how that would be fair.
it would however be fair for MS to take ie out of windows 7 and have those "browser" companies start selling cds again like way back in the years. i really want to see how that turns out
Mac OS X is not a dominant operating system. Windows is.
You don't see how abiding by the law is fair? Funny.
Are you denying that
# 1. every single operating system out there has a browser bundled with it today, and its normal to bundle browers with an OS?
AND
# 2. Were you on Pluto when Microsoft REMOVED IE from Win 7?
There is no Microsoft browser in Win 7 for the EU. The EU has no case. End of story.
Are you denying that Microsoft bundled IE with its dominant Windows operating system, and took over the browser market?
Your questions are dishonest because the EU never asked Microsoft to remove IE. Microsoft did that on their own. The EU wants to give actual choice, not to remove browsers completely from Windows.
- by bnkamalesh July 9, 2009 8:02 AM PDT
- @Plings
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by plings July 9, 2009 9:29 AM PDT
- No one should apologize for being the best.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (132 Comments)"Microsoft abused its dominance in the operating system market, and undermined competition in the browser market."
ABUSED! ? Wow! So plings you are saying that someone should apologize for being the best ?
So , you say Maradona [one among the best :) ] should apologize for being the best in football ?
What did Microsoft do ? They made IE [WHICH THEY MADE BY THEMSELVES] available in THEIR OS by default ? And I don't see how any kind of justification would fit , to ask Microsoft to include their RIVAL browsers by DEFAULT in THEIR OWN OS ?
Here is an example how it DOES NOT WORK ! :
You have a family, you have kids of your own. BUT Antitrust is asking you to make your wife pregnant with your Neighbor's kid [and the justification : BECAUSE THY SHOULD LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS YOUR OWN! ] ?
But if you win by cheating, you should be stripped of your medal.
Microsoft broke the law (they cheated). Simple as that.
Microsoft made IE, but they broke the law, and now they must face the consequences of their actions.
"Antitrust" is what? Asking? Antitrust is not a person, LOL.