Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
Thread beginning with comment 554324
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Typical EU
by andrewclunn on Wed 6th Mar 2013 14:04 UTC
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

Microsoft has a monopoly! We need the government to come in and force them to give users other options!

They didn't, yet they still lost their top browser spot due to actual competition? That can't be right! The people NEED us to fine large companies hundreds of millions of dollars... IT's for their own good! Now quick, what other American company can we 'protect' our people from?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Typical EU
by Kochise on Wed 6th Mar 2013 14:33 in reply to "Typical EU"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

The File Explorer is a total mess, I prefer using Total Commander, far better and with plug-in extensions. Microsoft should be fined for embedding such a poor file explorer and not giving the users a choice.

EU resident. I don't understand this sillyness as well, since Microsoft never prevented me to install some other file explorers.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Typical EU
by looncraz on Wed 6th Mar 2013 21:06 in reply to "RE: Typical EU"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

An operating system is understood, legally, to consist of the following, in part, or grouped together.

1. A layer of software to abstract the hardware (kernel / drivers / HAL / file system).

2. A layer of software to permit application software to interface with the aforementioned software layer (API, libraries).

3. User interfaces to interact with and control 1 & 2.

A file system browser is protected as part of the OS as the file system is part of HAL (#1 above).

An internet browser, on the other hand, does not serve to interface with the HAL or API, though it obviously uses both, it serves to interact with external resources created by third parties. This, by definition, as an application.

Laws apply differently between the two. Microsoft can change their OS all they want, they have no obligation to provide alternative kernels, libraries, or UI. They do, however, have an obligation to not use their OS dominance to gain or enforce and advantage for any of their other products which fit the definition of application.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Typical EU
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 14:39 in reply to "Typical EU"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now quick, what other American company can we 'protect' our people from?


Most fines like this have actually been levied against European companies - like Siemens.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE: Typical EU
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 6th Mar 2013 17:03 in reply to "Typical EU"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Punishments always come after the crime and last for years after. This is punishment from the 1990's microsoft behavior. Escaping from jail with a year left on a 99 year sentence is still a crime...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Typical EU
by zima on Sun 10th Mar 2013 23:56 in reply to "RE: Typical EU"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Escaping from jail with a year left on a 99 year sentence is still a crime...

That's actually not the case everywhere - IIRC, at least in one Nordic country. There escaping from jail is seen as a natural human need, hence carries no additional penalties itself (as long as the escape didn't involve any other crime!).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Typical EU
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 6th Mar 2013 18:55 in reply to "Typical EU"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Now quick, what other American company can we 'protect' our people from?


While it's not at the EC level, it looks like France and Germany are hard at work trying to find ways to extort money from Google, in exchange for granting them the "privilege" of indexing & promoting news media from those countries:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/germany-wants-google-to-...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/google-threatens-to-cut-...

Fortunately, Google doesn't seem to have any patience for that BS and has said that if the relevant laws go through, then they will simply stop indexing those sites... Which of course resulted in an orgy of faux-shock & self-entitled whining from French politicians, who were apparently stupid & arrogant enough to believe that Google would bend over and take it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Typical EU
by Alfman on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:24 in reply to "RE: Typical EU"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BallmerKnowsBest,

I'm not terribly familiar with those laws, but from the sources I see (including yours) everyone is allowed to display excerpts, such as those displayed by search engines today. It's just longer pieces that would need to be licensed for republication.

I can understand why google opposes it, but it still isn't their content to do with as they please. If the copyright owner wants to license it to google, then google should pay or forfeit publishing rights. I am aware that google cannot pay them for their content without setting into motion events that would undermine google's principal business model of using everyone else's data for free. Still unless I'm missing something it's hard for me to side with the pro-google agenda. Publishing rights beyond excerpts should lie with the content creator.

Reply Parent Score: 4