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 345528
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Abitrary and unfair
by fluxy on Mon 26th Jan 2009 13:24 UTC 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

RE[2]: Abitrary and unfair
by Moulinneuf on Mon 26th Jan 2009 14:45 in reply to "RE: Abitrary and unfair"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

The only problem with MS is that they have a dominant position and they have abused that position.


No ... They broke many laws and are being prosecuted for them after the long trial their expensivie lawyer afforded them.

That is why they are beholden to different standards than other vendors.


No , It's the same laws for everyone , other just don't break them or have yet to be prosecuted for them.

It is what happens to BIG BAD companies.


It's what happen to criminal who break the law , making an OS don't make your company bad or big. They don't make weapon or sale them illegally to the enemy of your nation for example.

If MS weren't BAD, they wouldn't be under scrutiny.


They are not an exception everyone suffer the same scrutiny , they even get chances other's don't.

So they can bundle whatever they want and still not have to answer to the same rules as MS.


NO , we have to follow the same law and we both do , in different ways but we do.

It's a different set of rules for different circumstances.


No , it's the same set of rules for everyone , other just don't break them at all.

When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute.


Not breaking any laws in doing that ...

So where is the anti-competitive lock in?


It's the extreme opposite.

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.


That's part of the problem , Microsoft also break standards , but refuse to support it's ompetition or make compatibility layer availaible.

How's that for a level playing field?


Microsoft is not accused of not supporting other OS , even do it should be , they are accused of blocking competition on Microsoft OS. ( IE is offered for Apple OS , the thing that those who accuse Apple tend to forget is included ).

Reply Parent Score: -1

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

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

right.. because being reasonable means you are an astroturfer.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

RE[2]: Abitrary and unfair
by fluxy on Tue 27th Jan 2009 14:21 in reply to "RE: Abitrary and unfair"
fluxy Member since:
2008-01-30

It is what happens to BIG BAD companies.

How do you define "BIG"? Is a company with a revenue of $32B big enough?
And "BAD"?

I'd think that a company locking it's OS to a specific hardware and having a monopoly on its hardware would be bad - or even locking products it has monopoly on to using only its services...

Apple is a minority player.

What I meant above is, they are fields where Apple is far from a minority - the first one coming to mind being the iPod. What did it do? Lock iPod to iTunes, and iTunes to iTunes store and App Store. Aren't they abusing of their monopoly power in this case?

Specially when they have an absolute control on what can be published in App Store and have been having DRM protected music in iTunes store such that only iPods be able to play these?

So unless the above is not bad, and apple is not a big company, I am tempted to believing that your "rule" of "BIG BAD" companies getting "slapped on the wrist if they cross the line" is only being arbitrarily applied.

When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute.

I know linux is a minority player and all, but with linux geared to play a major role in netbooks, maybe we should not ignore it. Admittedly "they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute", but do they come by default?

Taking ubuntu, the currently most popular linux distribution (which is delivered for free to your doorstep with a cherry on top), or even eeePC's and Aspire One's preinstalled linux offering, what browser / Office suite are installed on default? Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice.org. Is the user given any choice during setup? No. So if the user is unaware of any other offerings, the same issue may arise.

I don't believe you ...

Well you don't need to, but just for the fun, let me tell you that I'm posting this from xubuntu, my primary OS.

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


Actually this would be more interesting, rather than forcing Microsoft to dismember its product or advertise for its competitors, why not force OEMs to let their users choose their OS at buy time and inform them of possible choices? As it is, many people buy windows because they are unaware of alternatives.

Every governement does , do you think radio communication standards and pollution emission have no cost on car makers ?

I was talking of brand not of standards.

since they put the price at zero their is no real after market.

You must be kidding. All major browsers out there have a zero price tag, and all have to compete based on their technical abilities and marketing prowess - both of which having contributed to firefox's growth.

OEM are not breaking the law Microsoft is ...

The parent used OEM to mean OEM licensed OS.

Microsoft gave them Vista ...

What I mean is, perhaps it is time for MS to stop having its software as a preinstalled OS, and instead give it as a free voucher for a Basic version of their OS. The interesting part is OEMs should not restrict their vouchers to MS, and MS gets to have its "OEM" (it wouldn't be OEM anymore) OS the same way as the commercial ones.

No , your an ASTROTURFER.

Omg o_0 that's so funny. And you what are you? A freedom nazi?

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.

That's a very valid point. It will be definitely very appreciated if IE could be fully uninstallable, if technically possible - perhaps some libraries could be kept in case required by certain system components, but without the browser program itself being kept. However as far as the issue of Choice of Browsers during setup is concerned, I still believe MS, or anyone else for that matter, should not be forced to advertise for its competitors. Perhaps an option at setup asking whether IE should be installed or not, exactly as said by Thom in the article:

I think the most reasonable thing to demand from Microsoft is that Internet Explorer can be fully removed from Windows, and replaced by another browser. Shipping an operating system without a browser is ridiculous; forcing customers to choose between an arbitrary set of browses even more so.

Reply Parent Score: 3