Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Jul 2009 07:29 UTC
Opera Software Last week, the European Commission announced that Microsoft is willing to implement a browser ballot screen in Windows so that users can select a browser to install when installing Windows or when setting up their OEM computer. While this makes Opera very happy, Opera would like to see Ubuntu and Apple offer such a ballot screen too.
Permalink for comment 376027
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: 0.5% share threshold
by MollyC on Wed 29th Jul 2009 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 0.5% share threshold"
Member since:

Wow, you truly are deluded.
I'll just take one of your foolish statements as an example:

"And this latest incident where the EC decreed that it is illegal for Microsoft to not ship a browser at all?

When did the EC decree that this is illegal? They didn't. They said that simply removing IE was not a sufficient remedy to restore the market. That's not the same as removing IE being "illegal". Jesus Christ, where do you get your nonsense from?

Clearly you don't understand how the EC works. When the EC says, "That's not sufficient to restore competition", they mean, "That's not sufficient to be within the law as we see it.", meaning, prepare to be fined if you do that.

I'll deal with one more of your comments. You keep saying "Microsoft broke the law" (and you suggest that therefore, any "punishment", no matter how extreme or stupid, is just, which goes against any modern sense of proper jurisprudence). Microsoft "broke the law", only as determined by the EC, not by an actual trial. Whatever the EC says, goes. THAT's what EU law essentially says.

Here's the difference: In the US, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in court, and went through an actual judicial procedure. Microsoft was found liable, and the judge ordered a particular remedy. Microsoft appealed, the appeals court saw that the judge was an idiot, dismissed him from the case, dismissed his remedy, narrowed the scope of the case, then tossed the case back down to the lower court to be retry the remedy phase under the new narrow guidelines before a new and competent judge. MS and the DOJ then reached settlement that the new judge approved. And, while parts of that settlement have expired, other parts have been extended twice, at the behest of both the DOJ and Microsoft. (Microsoft likes the settlement because it provides guidelines as to what's kosher, and implements a compliance committee that Microsoft run new designs by and get an OK or not-OK before actually implementing the design).

Now let's look at the way the EU works:
The EC announces that they will investigate a company. The EC gathers "evidence" and "witnesses", but is not required to disclose either to the accused for cross examination. The EC then declares guilt, levels an arbitrary fine (the maximum fine is specified by law to be N% of the company's previous year's profits or revenue, but the amount levied below that is arbitrary). The company then appeals the verdit to the EU appeals court. But that court doesn't afford cross examination of evidence either, so it's really a waste of time. The only thing the EU appeals court is concerned with is procedure (like making sure the fine is within the lawful limits). So the EU appeals court rubberstamps the EC verdict, and the company has to live with being "convicted" without due process, without cross examining witnesses, without even a decent appeals process.

Then, people like you declare, "Microsoft broke the law, remember?", without bothering to examine how that verdict was arrived at.

Here's a great quote I found at arstechnica by a user named "Edzo", on the topic of this browser ballot:

Of course Microsoft caved, what's surprising is that it has taken them this long to realize these are show trials. Once the EU competition commissioner starts investigating, you've already been found guilty.

Reply Parent Score: 3