Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Jan 2009 11:56 UTC
Internet & Networking Earlier this month, news got out that the European Commission is charging Microsoft with unlawful competition regarding its bundling of the Internet Explorer web bowser with Windows. At the time, information was scarce, but thanks to Microsoft's quarterly filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission. we now have a little more insight into what the EU might force Microsoft to do.
Thread beginning with comment 345519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: How typical
by Matzon on Mon 26th Jan 2009 12:28 UTC in reply to "How typical"
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

And what if I DO NOT WANT TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE?

Buy the commercial version - its only the OEMs that are being forced.

Or what if I do not want to make that decision?

So someone else is better at telling you which software you should use? I would assume you would be the best one to make that choice?

And what if I want my browser INCLUDED in my OS?

it IS included, you just have to choose which to use.

Its similar to choosing write.exe or notepad.exe - instead of being forced to only use write.exe

of course one could argue that several application could have the same issue, which is why Microsoft has the 'Set program access and defaults' option. They just need to run it in the installation.

That said, I think that only a limited number of people would understand the choice given: Please choose your browser: (a) (b) (c). How many products should be listed? How would "normal" people know the difference?

Edited 2009-01-26 12:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: How typical
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 26th Jan 2009 13:14 in reply to "RE: How typical"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I guess the setup helper will be responsable for downloading the browser too?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Abitrary and unfair
by fluxy on Mon 26th Jan 2009 13:24 in reply to "RE: How typical"
fluxy Member since:
2008-01-30

While I am not pro-microsoft, I believe this is arbitrary and unfair. What about Mac or Linux? Admittedly they do not have a monopoly, but they are also trying to "force-sell/include" some software.

What would be nice is, have a barebones Windows Installation and then on first-run, ask the user if he/she wants to have 1. Windows Media Player 2. Internet Explorer 3. Outlook Express 4. OneCare 5. Windows Live Components..etc installed, and if so, they get installed (offline - just pop in cd or something like that). No need to include other programs like Firefox or Chrome or Thunderbird. Microsoft, like any other company should not be forced to distribute/advertise for other software.

It's like telling Renault to ask their customers which brand of radio they want on purchase or what engine. The whole thing forms part of the windows experience and license. What do they want removed next? notepad? explorer.exe? or maybe have people choose between cygwin and command prompt.

Buy the commercial version - its only the OEMs that are being forced.


Then perhaps is it time for OEMs to die? Have microsoft given them a "free" version of "windows x basic edition" instead? Besides why should Microsoft be the only OEM OS concerned?

P.S. I am not a Microsoft Fanboy, just that Stupidity cannot be condoned, and justice cannot be arbitrary.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Abitrary and unfair
by r_a_trip on Mon 26th Jan 2009 14:06 in reply to "Abitrary and unfair"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The only problem with MS is that they have a dominant position and they have abused that position. That is why they are beholden to different standards than other vendors. It is what happens to BIG BAD companies. They get slapped on the wrist if they cross the line. If MS weren't BAD, they wouldn't be under scrutiny.

What about Mac or Linux?

What about them? Apple is minority player. Linux? According to Windows lovers it is virtually non-existent. So they can bundle whatever they want and still not have to answer to the same rules as MS. It's not arbitrary. It's a different set of rules for different circumstances.

When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute. So where is the anti-competitive lock in? Heck, if MS made a version of IE for Linux and put it under a license that let Distro's distribute it as a binary, they would include IE. How's that for a level playing field?

Reply Parent Score: 6

Microsoft Astroturfer bulshit ...
by Moulinneuf on Mon 26th Jan 2009 14:32 in reply to "Abitrary and unfair"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

While I am not pro-microsoft,


I don't believe you ...

I believe this is arbitrary and unfair.


What is unfair is letting Microsoft break the law , all the time will asking it's competition to follow it. They should strip Microsoft of all it's worldwide profit for the years of their commited crime.

Criminal should not be allowed to benefit from breaking the laws.

What about Mac or Linux?


Unlike Microsoft they have not broken any law , mocked justice system and wasted repeatidly the time of the judges and courts and lied under oath. They don't spy on other country for one country either.

Admittedly they do not have a monopoly


They are not dicussing the monopoly law , that Microsoft still break today here , but tying law , forcing two different and separate product on consumer at the expanse of others.

but they are also trying to "force-sell/include" some software.


No , they do not , many judge worldwide statuated on that.

What would be nice is, have a ... like any other company should not be forced to distribute/advertise for other software.


What would be nice is to have Microsoft barred from default install.

It's like telling Renault to ask their customers which brand of radio they want on purchase or what engine.


Every governement does , do you think radio communication standards and pollution emission have no cost on car makers ? Beside you can change both easily after sale , they both have thriving radio and engine after market too.

Where as with IE removing it is not easy or even really doable and since they put the price at zero their is no real after market.

The whole thing forms part of the windows experience and license.


Yes , criminal reprehsensive activity , got to give you that one ...

What do they want removed next? notepad? explorer.exe? or maybe have people choose between cygwin and command prompt.


It's their territory , they make the law , follow them or dont do business there , it's really simple.

Then perhaps is it time for OEMs to die?


OEM are not breaking the law Microsoft is ...

Have microsoft given them a "free" version of "windows x basic edition" instead?


Microsoft gave them Vista ...

Besides why should Microsoft be the only OEM OS concerned?


They are the only one found guitly of having broken the law and not respecting the punishment imposed on them ...

I am not a Microsoft Fanboy


No , your an ASTROTURFER.

just that Stupidity cannot be condoned


You prefer to support criminal who break all the laws at the expanse of the rest of the market and of end user's ...

and justice cannot be arbitrary.


It was not , Microsoft was allowed to make it's case , waist the court time , again in this other law breaking case , go to it's limit and even beyond again.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Abitrary and unfair
by raver31 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 10:11 in reply to "Abitrary and unfair"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Why can some people not see the differences ?
Microsoft force IE onto every Windows PC. It cannot be removed without breaking the whole system.

Can XP run Windows Update without IE installed on the PC ? NO.

With Linux you are NOT forced to use any piece of software, YOU have the freedom to pick and choose, to remove (TOTALLY, WITHOUT TRACE) of any browser without breaking things.

Don't like Firefox ? fine, remove it and stick on Epiphany, dont like that ? fine, remove it and stick on Konqueror, none of them will damage the system if you add/remove them. They are not inherently locked so deep into the system.

The main difference is this. On Linux, a browser is a browser. Just another application.

On Windows, IE is a required mandatory system component that Microsoft want you to keep on the system, and make it too hard to remove.

Before the Microsoft shills retort with "IE can be removed", I am talking about the application, not the icon !

Edited 2009-01-27 10:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3