Comments on: What the EU might force Microsoft to do

In its quarterly filing with the SEC, Microsoft cautions that it may have to offer access to other browsers and potentially disable parts of Internet Explorer.

[ITcomposer]

The EU wasting time again, gees when will they get it, i have a choice when i build my computers, IE 7 in Vista is only used by me when i need to go to an archaic site that for some divine reason uses ACTIVEX, other than that SAFARI 3.2 does the job fine for me, but then again im a techie.
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.

[t8]

And therein lies the argument. You are a techie. Most people are not. Most people do not change the default because they are not techies..

[Seaspray0]

Thank god I live on a planet where people can bicker over a coffee lawsuit in the USA after reading about a regulatory commission in europe.

[Super2online]

Thank god I don't live in Europe where the government decides what software companies can and cannot do, and what computer manufactures can and cannot do. It's no miracle that people left those countries by the thousands back in the day.

[AppleProLeo]

Thank God I don't live in the US, where I can't even serve a cup of coffees without getting sued.

[Super2online]

AppleProLeo,

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!

[lordeagle]

Liebeck vs McDonald's Restaurants 1994
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.

[Lerianis]

Little problem: the woman didn't sue because she was served coffee, she sued because she was served hot coffee.... that the lid came off and she scalded herself. It's still a ******** lawsuit... but we gotta get the facts straight.

[olderguy2]

I don't have the facts in front of me, but if you research the details of this McDonald's coffee suit, you will see that this store had been previously cited for having their coffee at too high of a temperature for serving. While it seems like a BS case McDonald's wasn't just sued because the woman scalded herself. They were responsible for the coffee being at a higher than allowed temperature.

[t8]

Thank God I do not live in the US where an abusive monopoly can finance a presidential campaign and then change the outcome of a court case penalty when the administration changes. At least the EU cannot be bribed. BTW, I don't live in the EU or the US.

[SneezingPanda]

"They were responsible for the coffee being at a higher than allowed temperature."
So, the government in US also decides what compnies can and cannot do ;)

[ReaderInNC]

The McDonald's coffee suit was a civil lawsuit. The government had nothing to do with it.

[tech_crazy]

It might seem to some that the EU is wasting it's time but it is not. They are doing the right thing unlike the USDOJ that meekly submitted to MS for their commingling of things and abusing their monopoly. MS continues to do so and harm others.

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.

[admiral100]

Gee, no bias here, right? Man, get real. I get sick and tired of reading the MS haters. All you people that keep flaming the tech forums with your incredible bias against Microsoft have nothing to offer but a bunch of insults and conspiracy theories. Microsoft's only real practice of monopolization was maybe, MAYBE, in the way it used to offer rebates to OEM's therefore cutting out competition.

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.

[Lerianis]

admiral100, you get it exactly right. I could understand this lawsuit if Microsoft was making problems with Firefox/another browser using bits of code hidden in the OS, but I haven't seen that.
If they kept people from downloading Firefox/Chrome/Opera.... then it would be a good lawsuit... but again, WE DON'T HAVE THAT!

[massfat]

@tech_crazy

I'm sure you're very crazy, but not so techie.

[t8]

Nice post tech_crazy. You are not blinded as others obviously are.

[shinji257]

Well I agree that IE is more or less integrated into Windows. It is as such that it became difficult to disable.

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.

[timber2005]

A browser should be considered a necessary component of a operating system just like a graphical output component (either GUI or line based is "graphical") and should be allowed.

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.

Maybe the EU should require that MS also bundle competing operating systems with Windows too such as OSX, Ubuntu, Unix, etc.... you know... just to give the dips$#ts a choice!!

[Random_Walk]

I find it strange that you would complain about being forced to have more choices presented to you.

[Lerianis]

Having more choices presented to me.... no. Having more 'crapware' that I have to uninstall because I will never ever use it, yes.

[Penguinisto]

Dunno... I think he/she/it may be onto something.

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?

[dhavleak]

@ Penguinisto -

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!

[eudefender]

dhavleak is the liar here.
"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.

[Penguinisto]

...Lie?

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).

[dhavleak]

@ eudefender

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??

[dhavleak]

@ penguinisto -- you crack me up man..

"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?

[MSSlayer]

I recently bought a Toshiba Qosmio laptop(using the term laptop very loosely here). When I booted up it gave me the option of 32 or 64 bit Vista, and it actually had a partition utility available! But nope, no application software choice at all.

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.

[Seaspray0]

I'm not surprised, dhavleak. A month ago he claimed "any 13-year-old in Eastern Europe can write a script or rig a webpage to pop a Windows box". He still hasn't backed that up with a single 13 year old.

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

[ReaderInNC]

If the purpose of the EU action is to present more choices to the consumer, then the EU should be ... ah, working with the OEMs to present multiple browsers for their customers to cselect from. It shouldn't be Microsoft's duty to present its competition.

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 .....

[wango2007]

This is more nutty stuff from the EU. Last time I checked, you could download scores of browsers, and their all free. Who, exactly, is being hurt financially here (beside MS)???

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.

[pentest]

1. End users are stupid and they use whatever is in front of them. Most of them couldn't tell you what a browser is other then the 'internet thingy'.

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.

[Lerianis]

pentest, get off that crap. My father, who is by NO means technically literate, had me download Firefox for our computers after hearing in USA Today that it was better than IE. I was already using it, but if my FATHER hears about it, then ANYONE can hear about it.

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.

[MSSlayer]

Windows explorer has no business being bolted to the OS either. File and folder names are an abstraction for the user, the OS doesn't need them.

In fact, WE actually uses IE.

[MSSlayer]

And yes, IE has DIRECT access to kernel space and has all the permissions.

IE gets raped daily because of this.

[shinji257]

@Lerianis: The complete removal of IE would break so much stuff it isn't even funny. iexplore.exe and explorer.exe are in fact the same program. You can't remove the one without removing or breaking the other. explorer.exe happens to also be the GUI that we are all used to seeing and not just Windows Explorer. The context gets modified depending on how it was called. This was the reason why back in the Windows 98 days 98LITE had to re-insert the Windows 95 version of explorer.exe in order to totally remove IE. There wasn't a way otherwise.

[everydaypanos]

The EU Securities and Exchange Commission is the big daddy. Face it.

[everydaypanos]

And wait to see what happens when China gets a decent agency for antitrust enforcement...

[Seaspray0]

A decent agency for antitrust enforcement where over 90% of

[Seaspray0]

Where over 90% of the software is pirated? China is a joke when it comes to enforcing international laws.

[unknown unknown]

What are the chances the same people who stick with IE will continue to us IE because it's what they know?

Wouldn't it be ironic if despite being carried on OEM computer people still didn't choose Opera.

[Super2online]

You really have to feel for those Opera guys. I'll bet their mothers are really proud of the way they are finding some measureable success in the PC software industry in Europe. All those years of practice as children whinning, snibbling, and complaining seems to finally be paying off for them as adults!

[eadeguzman]

I think the EU is being smart about it.

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...

[Lerianis]

That is pretty much the point of this: to EXTORT money out of Microsoft and other companies. If I was them.... I would appeal to the WORLD COURT... which can override the EU court in things like this and has quite a few times.

[Penguinisto]

Nah - prolly just MSFT - they kind of have it coming after their antics throughout the 90's and beyond...

[dhavleak]

@ Penguinisto - "they kind of have it coming after their antics throughout the 90's and beyond"

And here I thought this wasn't about revenge or hatred, but about consumer choice..

[Penguinisto]

It about neither revenge or hatred, but about equalizing what was once an unequal market.

[dhavleak]

Is that why you lied repeatedly in the comments above then?

[gp2792]

"It about neither revenge or hatred, but about equalizing what was once an unequal market"

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.

[pentest]

All the EU needs to do is force MS to place IE back where it belongs, in userland.

Once it is removed from the kernel, countless problems will magically disappear.

[unknown unknown]

At least from a security stand point I agree. Integrating IE so tightly into the Windows Kernel was a huge mistake.

[Lerianis]

Why is it a 'huge mistake"? And newsflash: they ALREADY took it out of kernel space in XP SP2, where it runs as an administrator but makes NO kernel calls except when an application tells it to.

[dhavleak]

@ pentest and unknown unknown --

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.

[massfat]

Stop giving foolish comments. IE was taken out of the kernel long ago! Magically disappear huh? How about we say it was never there to begin with?

[MSSlayer]

Lerianas,

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.

[MSSlayer]

Massfat,

Then explain why IE can not be uninstalled without breaking Windows.

[badmojo42]

I'm fine with Microsoft adding other browsers if Apple has to do the same. Linux is free so who cares what comes with that. I think its BS that a company has to add a competitors application to their product.

[massfat]

I completely agree. This is ridiculous. Asking people what they want when they buy it is just a huge hassle which most people don't even care for or have time for! If its Microsoft's own product, they can do whatever they want with it!

[SniffTheDuck]

I also have to agree with this. You can't expect Microsoft to include other peoples browsers if you're not going to force the competition to include IE as well.

[shootthecops]

overall i'm opposed to antitrust laws, but if they exist, microsoft should be the #1 target. companies that compete unfairly are the downfall of the free market.

[what_ever_works]

If I want to use another browser, I will download it. I don't like the idea of being forced to have to uninstall browsers that I never wanted in the first place when I install Windows. The only thing the EU could decide that would be fair would be for Microsoft to remove IE from the OS and people would have to choose to download it, like every other browser.

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.)

[Lerianis]

There is never going to be a world like that. People LIKE CHOICE, and the fact is that NO browser, media player, etc. does the job right.
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.

[massfat]

I recommend command prompt for doing everything you need. The only drawback is that it doesn't actually do anything to help your experience.

[MSSlayer]

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).

[Dalkorian]

by MSSlayer January 25, 2009 6:45 PM PST
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!

[muzakaz]

Microsoft should sell there software to the EU, without a broswer.... AND SEE HOW THE IDIOTS LIKE THAT.

CAPITALISM IS DIEING!

[Lerianis]

Well, good riddance. Capitalism was NOT the best thing in the world, in fact it was a stinky pile of dog poo to be blunt, at least for non-optional things.

[muzakaz]

Euro-trash trying to force their brand of socialism.

[massfat]

The true ideals of capitalism can never be met in this world. Our world warps everything because of all the various conflicting ideas that exist. And because we can never achieve true capitalism, we shouldn't have tried to in the first place. Yes, I suggest Microsoft start selling Windows Command Prompt as a standalone OS that does everything you need. After all, the command prompt is what the OS really is.

[shootthecops]

Capitalism has been dead in Europe for a long time, thats why America was so successful. In capitalism you get to keep the money that you EARN. However companies like Microsoft lock in with their products, which IS NOT OKAY, however the consumers are the ones that should be revolting, not any government.

[Marbux]

Muzakaz said: "
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?

[atomD21]

I agree that removing IE from the kernel would be a great boon to security, but I think this whole thing with the EU is stupid. It's not as if MS is crippling other browsers when they get put on a Windows machine. Forcing standards compliance would be a much more reasonable aim (although not in line with what they are wanting to do here) so there are no occurences of "Internet Explorer Version X.X needed to view this page."

[Lerianis]

There aren't any cases of that, unless you are talking out VERY browser-specific corporate apps.

[shinji257]

IE does not reside in kernel space. It resides in user space only. It just happens to bind in with the gui rather tightly but is not part of the kernel at all. (Research MinWin)

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071019/eric-talk-demo-windows-7-minwin/

[henryisland]

Hmm, I wonder why I have to get an Audi engine in my Audi. Maybe we should force the European auto companies to offer engine choices. Maybe I could get a GM Northstar in my Audi.

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.

[eudefender]

That is not upon you to decide but the law. All competitors deserve an equal start position. That means you need to be able to chose as a consumer which browser to use. Microsoft gets an unfair advantage for IE through bundling. Whatever browser people take, it is a secondary browser to IE that comes preinstalled. I never wanted it and yet I cannot remove it, it came preinstalled.

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.

[massfat]

@eudefender

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.

[t8]

To the comment above.

The US courts held that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist.
A monopoly is not necessarily bad, but the Microsoft monopoly has proved to be.

[ReaderInNC]

t8 and eudefender -- The American court held that Microsoft held a monopoly in Windows PCs; Macs, for instance, were not included in the market share that concluded Windows was the monopoly OS. By that definition, Audi is a monopolist in Audi automobiles. Hence henryisland's valid comparison that maybe the EU should mandate a choice in engines for Audis to give competitors a fair chance.

[OFC_Rocco]

Ok, Every OS I have loaded lately has had a browser included in it, Is the E.U. going after them too or is this just another M.S. bashing witch hunt?

[massfat]

Actually, it's simply legal extortion, as dictated by the EU.

[shinji257]

@massfat: Correct from my viewpoint. I mean why not go after Apple for pre-installing Safari on their machines?

[Regac]

In this case, IMO, the best thing to do would be to uninstall Internet Explorer and ship the thing with no browser at all.
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.

[massfat]

The best option is to ship a version of Windows that comes only with command prompt, and call everything else premium versions of Windows.

[gefitz]

maybe MS should just include no browser at all. Maybe install an FTP client so the user can figure out how to find and download an alternative browser. Then, have the webcam record/post the facial expression of every user the first time they log in and discover how useful it actually is to have a browser installed out of the box. Everyone should start memorizing Mozilla's ftp url!

Everyone is free to remove the software they don't want...

[Lerianis]

WEll, as some people have said... it is near IMPOSSIBLE to remove IE totally. In fact, if you do..... a whole load of crap breaks.... and that's putting it mildly. IE DOES need to be separated from the OS a little bit better so that it can be uninstalled.... however, I doubt that even Microsoft knows how to do that without breaking things.

[massfat]

I completely agree. We should be free to uninstall and install anything we want. Hurray for Windows Command Prompt Edition!

[t8]

Bundling a number of browsers gets around that problem and gives consumers a choice right out of the box.

[ReaderInNC]

Right you are, t8. And the OEMs should be bundling those browsers, not Microsoft. After all, if MS is forced to bundle Opera, Firefox and Chrome then the next thing the EU is going to requires is that Microsoft support those since Microsoft shipped them with Windows.

[Super2online]

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.

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.

[massfat]

I suggest launching lawsuits involving high treason against humanity/evolution, extortion, human rights infringement, torture, slander, use of force and coercion, etc