Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Jan 2009 20:57 UTC
Last week, news got out that Microsoft had been charged with breaking competition laws by the European Commission. The EU stated that Microsoft has broken competition laws because it bundles its Internet Explorer browser with Windows, which gives the browser an unfair advantage over competing browsers such as Firefox and Opera. OSNews readers debated this topic lively, and it seems we can use this story to continue the discussion: Opera Software's CEO Jon von Tetzchner joined in on the fun.
Thread beginning with comment 344552
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-06
It shows the original reasoning in the antitrust case was flawed. If IE's rise can be solely explained by its bundling with Windows, it follows that Microsoft has a monopolistic power in that market. It also follows that though matter how good a competing product is, IE's position in Windows would ensure its monopolistic position. All turning out to be false.
IE still remains entrenched in the corporate market, where apps are tied to the technologies Microsoft introduced through IE (which was probably the whole point of the browser itself: a mean to turn their proprietary tech into a de facto standard).
It's only outside there that alternative browsers are slowly eroding IE's marketshare, and just because MS let IE stagnate on a crappy version 6 for far too long.
Member since:
2005-07-27
1. Violation of competition law is very different from violation of tax laws. Tax laws are prescriptive - you can follow it to the letter. Competition laws are subjective to the case - without any precedent case, it is hard to ascertain for sure if you're a monopoly (especially when courts no longer define it as near or complete control of a market) and if you're acting illegally.
2. The rise of Firefox shows very clearly that Microsoft's monopoly is neither strong or sustainable or obtainable just by bundling with Windows. IE ascended simply because their competition wasn't capable enough - can anyone honestly say that Netscape 4.x was superior to IE 4.x? Microsoft's main competitor then went into a long-drawn rewrite process that produces Netscape 6 years after losing the market.
It shows the original reasoning in the antitrust case was flawed. If IE's rise can be solely explained by its bundling with Windows, it follows that Microsoft has a monopolistic power in that market. It also follows that though matter how good a competing product is, IE's position in Windows would ensure its monopolistic position. All turning out to be false.