European Union accuses Microsoft of antitrust violations

Microsoft said yesterday that it has received a Statement of Objections from the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission(EC). This is not the first time the EC has objected Microsoft business practices and its been going on since 2005. Microsoft was fined more than $1 billion in the past by EC after determining that Microsoft isn't living up to the terms of a 2004 antitrust settlement.

Below is the statement published by Microsoft:

MICROSOFT STATEMENT ON EUROPEAN COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS
January 16, 2009

Yesterday Microsoft received a Statement of Objections from the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission. The Statement of Objections expresses the Commission's preliminary view that the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows since 1996 has violated European competition law. According to the Statement of Objections, other browsers are foreclosed from competing because Windows includes Internet Explorer. The Statement of Objections states that the remedies put in place by the U.S. courts in 2002 following antitrust proceedings in Washington, D.C. do not make the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows lawful under European Union law.

We are committed to conducting our business in full compliance with European law. We are studying the Statement of Objections now. Under European competition law procedure, Microsoft will be afforded an opportunity to respond in writing to this Statement of Objections within about two months. The company is also afforded an opportunity to request a hearing, which would take place after the submission of this response. Under EU procedure, the European Commission will not make a final determination until after it receives and assesses Microsoft's response and conducts the hearing, should Microsoft request one.
-- Microsoft Corporation

This looks like it is based on the complaint filed by Opera to EC which is aimed at giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers. It condemns Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and not allowing to bundle other web browsers with Windows. The complaint also urges Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

ISPs to police piracy

Next Story

Cloudo Beta Goes Public

224 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So the EU are short of cash.

Ohh so can I fine M$ for something when I am short of cash?

It's me and other registered users of M$ products that will foot the bull not M$.

They just raise the retail costs.

Thanks a bunch EU, M$ has produced billions and billions of revenue and jobs by just being.

I'm glad you have such an informed understanding of the subject matter... oh wait, no you don't. Competition laws exist to protect the consumer. If Microsoft destroys the competition through unfair business practices then prices can be raised and innovation can take a back seat. The reality is that Microsoft has to abide the laws of the countries in which it operates - the implication here is that Microsoft has not, though this is not the final ruling.

STability? Security? My IE8 experience with windows 7 has converted me back to IE after having played with both firefox and chrome. Theres choice and alot of it in the browser market. The EU is being stupid in the matter in my opinion.

This really comes down to money, MS has is and the EU wants it. Microsoft has made changes, and members of the EU don't care, they see money and are going to go for it. Microsoft is not a monopoly because they made us to it, they are because they had the best product. There will always be monopolies, and there is no reason to punish them, except to line your own pocket with cash.

MS made changes and gave us the Set Default program, any additional changes are unwarranted and should be fully challenged, and maybe this time the US government will step in and protect one of our own, If not, MS under Balmer may tell some countries or groups to **** off.

I believe people is missing the issue, because IE comes pre-installed on the computer and its called "Internet Explorer" the average people will think this is the only way to access websites and will not search or think about other options. I not should what Microsoft should do about the issue but this is monopoly issue and EU was right to step in.

Gerry said,
I believe people is missing the issue, because IE comes pre-installed on the computer and its called "Internet Explorer" the average people will think this is the only way to access websites and will not search or think about other options. I not should what Microsoft should do about the issue but this is monopoly issue and EU was right to step in.


If people are that dumb, let them use MACs. I mean give me a break, this is honestly about money nothing else. The benifit is about money, and control, not helping others.

Wow, I ... really don't have words... why don't they just give up. Microsoft should move all their activity to some tax paradise where no-one can touch them

This is obviously an attempt from the EU to soak up more funds from Microsoft.

I am platform agonistic. I love MacOS X (i use it primilary at home) I love Windows (Which is use at work) and i love Linux which is use on servers with windows.

IE 5 and 6 were crap in my opinion, these browsers destroyed standards and made many websites IE only. The major banks were guilty of this, it took ages for Barclays etc to be compatible with any browser.

However that was 6 years ago, this is now 2009. We have IE7 and IE8 on the way which both adere to web standards, i don't think i have ever come across a public web site which doesn't work on all browsers. Microsoft learnt their mistake and made their browsers better.

Again we are in 2009, to sell an OS without the ability to, Surf the Web, Check Emails, To play music and do basic text file / word processing is ludicrous. Users need to be able to walk into a shop and purchase a computer which can do those things. Yes OEM could install their own, however some won't and every PC sold will come with a different array of Software.

Opera is only complaining because their market share is diminishing, IE, Firefox and Safari are leading the pack, due to features and user preference, if Opera want to increase their share they are gonna have to innovate and draw new users as Firefox has done successfully.

I appreciate some of the EU laws as it helps us to have a healthy market, however i can't think of anyway this is going to help end users, i think this is going to be a disaster and i hope Microsoft is able to stand up to them not only to stop them becoming the personal piggy bank of the EU but to also stand up for users who want to buy computers knowing they can use them in a modern world.

blah blah blah, lets start with removing the games, removing calc, notepad, ms paint, sound recorder, etc.

if they remove IE, how am i going to go online and download any other browser? there was too much to read above to see if anyone answered my question, and i dont have the time at this exact moment.

thats exactly what i was thinking.

lets remove IE from windows installations, and lets remove ftp funtionality.
so where do you get your browser from now huh? :D

maybe MS should implement wget into windows :D

next move: lets sue all OEMs for bundling their software. some of them preload their pcs with firefox! what about that?

@ LTD - I will agree Apple so far has not been convicted as a monopoly, but Apple like all company has had some questionable business practices. I am writing this on a MacBook, i earn my living supporting Microsoft products so i am not biased in either direction. I do personally feel with my Iphone and Mac hardware that i have to constantly refer to apple for support and whilst this is a good service generally i feel this indicates that the mac OS X eco system is heavily in favor of apple, as is Microsoft's. I as an englishman feel deeply embarrassed that this matter has come to light due to the ignorance of the EU money grabbing squad. but i will ask you this if Microsoft are being investigated again for this, how much longer til apple is investigated for Iphone Exclusive network contracts, Itunes and Ipod being lock into an eco system that allows for no competition and finally pushing a web browser on a update service that was originally used to update a media player (itunes) and this is on the windows platform. it think all companies are in it to make money, but i do feel Microsoft are being penalized for doing what apple and many others are doing and have been doing for many years.

And is Apple in trouble for "forcing" Safari being pre-installed (and the default browser) on OS X? NO SIR! I guess only Microsoft has pockets deep enough to satisfy the EU's greed.

This issue has long since died. The EU needs to find a different revenue stream.

Microsoft is NOT the reason why very few people want Opera installed on their computer and this is about the lowest, least-creative, least-effort method of changing that. Try copying Microsoft. As in, INNOVATE something.

I don't understand how it is said that OS X operates in the same market space as windows. I'm sure Apple prohibit me from running OSX on my pc. I had to buy a very expensive iMac to get that software.

I'm all for software being bundled as it improves the Out of the Box Experience. I don't wanna spend ages adding all the programs needed to just get started on a computer. I want to just be able to turn it on, browse the net, maybe play a media file, much like I can right now with windows or my Mac. Things like this make me glad I moved out of the EU

-T- said,
I don't understand how it is said that OS X operates in the same market space as windows. I'm sure Apple prohibit me from running OSX on my pc. I had to buy a very expensive iMac to get that software.

I'm all for software being bundled as it improves the Out of the Box Experience. I don't wanna spend ages adding all the programs needed to just get started on a computer. I want to just be able to turn it on, browse the net, maybe play a media file, much like I can right now with windows or my Mac. Things like this make me glad I moved out of the EU


Look up what a relevant market is. OS X or Macs are considered to be a substitute or an interchangeable product, no matter what it costs for you to get. (that being the iMac)

giga said,
Look up what a relevant market is. OS X or Macs are considered to be a substitute or an interchangeable product, no matter what it costs for you to get. (that being the iMac)

Yes, and the Psystar case is especially useful in highlighting this. At least it's the most recent one that has considered the issue with respect to Apple specifically.

giga said,

Look up what a relevant market is. OS X or Macs are considered to be a substitute or an interchangeable product, no matter what it costs for you to get. (that being the iMac)


Which is why people are so p*ssed off about it. OS X is NOT a subsitute for Windows on the basis that it costs more and you are then restricted to their hardware.

But as a "subsitute product" they are allowed to bundle their browser with the platform?

Legal definitions aside, this is downright stupid. The fact that our/your legal framework is unable to cope with these issues doesn't make the fact that Apple throw their browser in with their OS any more "right" than Microsoft.

stevehoot said,

Which is why people are so p*ssed off about it. OS X is NOT a subsitute for Windows on the basis that it costs more and you are then restricted to their hardware.

But as a "subsitute product" they are allowed to bundle their browser with the platform?

Legal definitions aside, this is downright stupid. The fact that our/your legal framework is unable to cope with these issues doesn't make the fact that Apple throw their browser in with their OS any more "right" than Microsoft.


It IS a substitute on the basis that it mimics the use of the product it competes against. OS X is an indirect substitute of Windows--it competes with other oem and third party vendors such as Dell, Acer, etc.

I guess it comes down the how much money they make in the European union versus the fines they're being hit with. I suppose Microsoft works out which is more cost effective and goes with that.

The large issue is the Microsoft does not (despite opinion) have an endless supply of money, and eventually they will run out, especially if they're being hit with extremely large fines with the global economy the way it is.

I personally do not use internet explorer (other then to test for web designing) but as many people have said a operating system without a web browser is useless!

I guess the question must be asked, does Microsoft stop OEM companies from including other browsers within the system for fresh installs?

Because if not, why not just installed Firefox, opera or chrome onto the system, set it as the default browser for the operating system and away it goes.

The other side of course, is this will lose market share for IE which is bad for Microsoft and will also make web designers lives harder. The amount of browsers based on different standards already makes massive headaches for us.

I do not believe apple is a monopoly (perhaps in iTunes but not OS) but i can't stand it when people tell me 'ohh Mac has everything i need when i turn it on' the issue is Microsoft would too if it was allowed!

Perhaps Microsoft could have their own brand PC and start doing the same thing? ohh that's right.. Microsoft is a big company, so that's not allowed.

I'm not a fan boy of either MS or Apple but the EU is really ****ing me off. Treat Apple and Microsoft equal, or better yet **** off and go find some other way of getting money.

James812 said,
I'm not a fan boy of either MS or Apple but the EU is really ****ing me off. Treat Apple and Microsoft equal, or better yet **** off and go find some other way of getting money.

I hope you're not an economics or law major either.

This whole anti-trust thing has become ridiculous. Microsoft have yanked software out of windows 7 to try to be compliant (windows live essentials), they've opened up so many things but the last thing is to have a web browser.

The simple issue here is that you need a web browser to install a web browser (well for the average user) i still load up ie, go to Firefox and download it.

But a good percentage of people use what's on their desktop cause they don't know any better. Why is it Microsoft's job to assist people to find out 'hey other people do this better then us'.

I really dislike the idea that Microsoft is being forced to help other companies to gain market share. Isn't the whole point to stop anti-competitive practices, not HELP other companies? When is the last time your telco informed you a competitor has a better deal?

Microsoft needs to stop rolling over on this, and fight against the EU. I honestly doubt they care about what Microsoft does, they just want the money.

crashguy said,
Microsoft needs to stop rolling over on this, and fight against the EU. I honestly doubt they care about what Microsoft does, they just want the money.

Oh, they do fight. Butwhen the fines are paying the judges salaries, do you really expect the EU to let MS off the hook? As strange as it sounds, MS is helpless with this. The EU is essentially a bully stealing kids' lunch money.

waruikoohii said,
Oh, they do fight. Butwhen the fines are paying the judges salaries, do you really expect the EU to let MS off the hook? As strange as it sounds, MS is helpless with this. The EU is essentially a bully stealing kids' lunch money.

Surely that's like saying the US Supreme Court makes decisions based on the government paying them their salary? Rather doubtful.

The most hilarious part of this whole thing is that if Microsoft is forced to remove IE from Windows, then they really will be hindering browser competition (because it'll be difficult to get a browser! ).

Thats exactly what makes this whole thing so stupid and really lowers my respect for the EU in general. An internet browser is a key component in any OS. Its like selling a car with no tires in order to "create competition". I certainly wouldn't buy that car.

Chrono951 said,
Thats exactly what makes this whole thing so stupid and really lowers my respect for the EU in general. An internet browser is a key component in any OS. Its like selling a car with no tires in order to "create competition". I certainly wouldn't buy that car.

Indeed, fact is no one bought the N editions of XP/Vista in europe and korea... One would think the council would get the message... but no...

Chrono951 said,
Thats exactly what makes this whole thing so stupid and really lowers my respect for the EU in general. An internet browser is a key component in any OS. Its like selling a car with no tires in order to "create competition". I certainly wouldn't buy that car.

I lost all respect for the EU when they started the anti-trust investigations in the first case. The EU claims were so hilarious, and the outcome was just so poorly recieved. Like Arkos said, almost nobody buys the N versions of XP or Vista.

sharp65 said,
Man apple fanboys are pathetic, but anyways back to the point of the article I guess. Double standards are fun!

Do you also have trouble understanding what the legal definition of a monopoly is, and how Apple doesn't meet it?

There is an explanation somewhere above for your convenience.

Why should Microsoft have to sell a hampered version of Windows just because they are bigger than apple? Sure, they were convicted of trying to be a monopoly, but they did comply and if I understand correctly, they are no longer considered a monopoly. If the EU wants to promote the use of 3rd part internet browsers, then they should also force this ruling on Linux and OS X.

Chrono951 said,
Why should Microsoft have to sell a hampered version of Windows just because they are bigger than apple? Sure, they were convicted of trying to be a monopoly, but they did comply and if I understand correctly, they are no longer considered a monopoly. If the EU wants to promote the use of 3rd part internet browsers, then they should also force this ruling on Linux and OS X.

Why "should" they force this on Linux or OS X? You can't be a monopoly with less than 8% market share.

One doesn't know if they are no longer a monopoly or weren't one either. This lawsuit goes back to 1996.

LTD said,
Do you also have trouble understanding what the legal definition of a monopoly is, and how Apple doesn't meet it?

There is an explanation somewhere above for your convenience.


AFAIK there has been no legal challenge accusing Apple of being a Monopoly. This doesn't stop it from being so.

In my opinion, based on the definition of a monopoly I'd say that Apple is on the basis that it has complete control of the distribution of it's OS. (Whereby a monopoly is where a company has complete control over the distribution and access to a particular product.)

stevehoot said,

AFAIK there has been no legal challenge accusing Apple of being a Monopoly. This doesn't stop it from being so.

In my opinion, based on the definition of a monopoly I'd say that Apple is on the basis that it has complete control of the distribution of it's OS. (Whereby a monopoly is where a company has complete control over the distribution and access to a particular product.)


No, to have a monopoly in the first place you have to establish a relevant market. One product is not a market.

In Apple's case, the personal computer market is the established market and they nowhere near have any sort of control over this market.

giga said,

No, to have a monopoly in the first place you have to establish a relevant market. One product is not a market.

In Apple's case, the personal computer market is the established market and they nowhere near have any sort of control over this market.


Not according to the definition of a monopoloy that I can find. A monopoloy is where a single entity has sole control over the methodology, distribution and control over a single product regardless of market share.

stevehoot said,


Not according to the definition of a monopoloy that I can find. A monopoloy is where a single entity has sole control over the methodology, distribution and control over a single product regardless of market share.


Really? Are you getting your definition from a legal text? Because the FTC disagrees: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm

If your definition were true, then pretty much the majority of producers would be all counted as monopolies, since they all have rights to their own intellectual property.

BMW has "sole control over the methodology, distribution, and control" over their cars. Canon has "sole control over the methodology, distribution, and control" over their cameras.

Funny, this is the same EU who are running almost completely on Windows themselves when they were trying to support OSS software...

MS should just disable all their licenses :P

Either that, or just make IE (the app itself) an optional component to install and see what they say THEN... KTHX!

That could work. They could have a separate install section saying something like:

"Due to the EU's stupidity we are forced to make IE an optional component of the OS. Of course, opting out will require you to install your own browser manually because we have no way of providing web access to you without a browser. For businesses that rely on IE, this option should be obvious."

I've lost all my respect for Opera now. They'll come up with any excuse to blame their poor market share. You can't get rid of IE in Windows. It's a critical part of the OS. As jonbjerke mentions above, a lot of sites require ActiveX to run, and you need IE for that. Also, you can't really download anything without a web browser on your OS. Yes, I know someone mentioned above that you can download stuff without a web browser, but that is a very advanced level task. Imagine being a typical PC user with almost no knowledge of Windows at all trying to download a web browser through the command prompt. You'd be lost at sea!

Word of advice, EU. If you're gonna punish Microsoft for bundling its own browser, punish Apple for the same thing. You already stole $1 billion from Microsoft for that Windows Media Player bundling BS. Just go back to ruining the continent.

MightyJordan said,
I've lost all my respect for Opera now. They'll come up with any excuse to blame their poor market share. You can't get rid of IE in Windows. It's a critical part of the OS.

Which was a horrible idea, for the user (in terms of security), the market, and for MS.

That's a substantial part of the reason it's come to this.

LTD said,

Which was a horrible idea, for the user (in terms of security), the market, and for MS.

That's a substantial part of the reason it's come to this.

LTD - as I mentioned earlier, the same applies to Safari in OSX. The rendering engine is still there for other apps to use such as iTunes. You can actually delete Internet Explorer, however the Trident engine DLL is still there and is used by other applications.

Safari is a separate application from the WebKit framework. You are free to delete Safari from /Applications/ and continue to do whatever you wish.

giga said,
Safari is a separate application from the WebKit framework. You are free to delete Safari from /Applications/ and continue to do whatever you wish.


The rendering engine is still there. This is what the case is about and what would destroy various 3rd party application. That's like saying you are free to delete Internet Explorer but should still have the Trident engine in place (MSHTML.dll).

As such "Safari" is still installed - or at least the rendering engine.

The council is considering suing again?
The antitrust issues regarding browsers existed at the time of the first round of investigations on media players and interoperability, why didn't they consider suing back then?
Want my bet? Man... they sure have found a cow to milk. The more different cases they bring against MS, the more money they can fine them.

On the the point regarding web browsers, when you're in a Microsoft shop, there's no real alternative, it's not even from a compatibility standpoint with applications, the kinks can be easily ironed out most of the time, but from a MANAGEABILITY point.
When you have hundreds or thousands of workstations to manage in a domain, the integration of the browser within the OS and its management/reporting tools (AD, IEAK, etc) are just too good to pass on. Try managing and even deploying that kind of volume of Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera installations in a MS environment... Good luck lol. The competitors haven't really touched that aspect of the browser in their development processes. For firefox, it's been shelved on several consecutive releases, no one really got onto that part of the project.

For consumers, it's an entirely different matter of course.

If MS did this - it would cause a huge issue to the general business community. There are several sites / add-ons that require ActiveX to run. For instance, several on-line AV scanning engines require you to load an ActiveX module.

It sure is lovely to see everyone accusing Apple of having a monopoly over OS X, when they're in the same market and an established competitor to other computer suppliers/producers.

It seems as if many aren't familiar with US antitrust law and intellectual property. A firm can't have a monopoly over their own products.

The Agencies will not presume that a patent, copyright, or trade secret necessarily confers market power upon its owner. Although the intellectual property right confers the power to exclude with respect to the specific product, process, or work in question, there will often be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes for such product, process, or work to prevent the exercise of market power.

It is not illegal to choose not to license a product through other suppliers. I'm not sure where everyone is getting the idea that it is.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/0558.pdf

In addition, it seems people are just harping around accusations with the word monopoly, without actually fully knowing the definition behind it:

Market power plus exclusionary or predatory acts without business justification

That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm

So yes, it does make anyone with significant market share [plus exclusionary or predatory acts] in a specific market, a monopolist. Thus, it would be impossible for Apple to be a monopolist, when it has only 8% market share in the OS market.

I hear ya.

The issue is, that we have antitrust laws, rulings based on them, and factual accounts of those rulings. A lot of which is posted in this thread.

There is nothing that you can do if certain individuals - by way of personal opinion - don't accept the rationale and protections offered by antitrust laws and how they have been applied to MS, nor can we do anything about people who don't accept that Apple does not meet the legal standards of a monopoly.

Apparently wishing Apple met these standards makes it so. People really, really want Apple to be a monopoly. It doesn't work like that. ;)

All you can do, giga, is lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

LTD said,
I hear ya.

The issue is, that we have antitrust laws, rulings based on them, and factual accounts of those rulings. A lot of which is posted in this thread.

There is nothing that you can do if certain individuals - by way of personal opinion - don't accept the rationale and protections offered by antitrust laws and how they have been applied to MS, nor can we do anything about people who don't accept that Apple does not meet the legal standards of a monopoly.

Apparently wishing Apple met these standards makes it so. People really, really want Apple to be a monopoly. It doesn't work like that. ;)

All you can do, giga, is lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

You are still WRONG. Your case may have facts, but they have nothing to do with antitrust. A dismissal is NOT, nor has it EVER been, a ruling.

GreyWolfSC said,

You are still WRONG. Your case may have facts, but they have nothing to do with antitrust. A dismissal is NOT, nor has it EVER been, a ruling.

But it stands as precedent. That's really all that matters.

LTD said,

But it stands as precedent. That's really all that matters. ;)

It stands as nothing. It's simply a judge's opinion on something he declined to hear arguments on. If he did not make a ruling, there is no precedent. Judges make comments all the time.

GreyWolfSC said,

It stands as nothing. It's simply a judge's opinion on something he declined to hear arguments on. If he did not make a ruling, there is no precedent. Judges make comments all the time.

It's a Persuasive Precedent made in dicta. There doesn't need to be a ruling. And the decisions in the Psystar case stand on public record. Judges involved in future cases can give whatever weight they like to judge's dismissal of Psystar's antitrust claims. In any event, Psystar made the attempt, and the reasons for their failure are on record, thankfully. And it still qualifies as precedent. It just isn't binding. It's a more discretionary form.

microsoft makes their own operating system and should be able to bundle whatever the hell they want with it. the eu is making an issue out of a non-issue.

People overlook the fact that Microsoft hindered web standards for many years because IE6 became a de facto standard.

The real problem is that web browser vendors are not forced to make sure their products adhere to W3C standards. If they were it would benefit both developers and end users in the long run and I suspect we wouldn't be seeing these calls for alternative to browsers to be offered to Windows users quite so much.

ziadoz said,
People overlook the fact that Microsoft hindered web standards for many years because IE6 became a de facto standard.

The real problem is that web browser vendors are not forced to make sure their products adhere to W3C standards. If they were it would benefit both developers and end users in the long run and I suspect we wouldn't be seeing these calls for alternative to browsers to be offered to Windows users quite so much.

Microsoft targeted IE at the corporate market. There is simply no comparison to IE for hosting intranet web applications if you use Microsoft technology. The advantage in an environment like that is that you can access the intranet apps and vendor web sites without accruing extra costs by having to support a third-party product you don't really need.

It's true that Microsoft SHOULD have started working on the new modes in IE8 a while ago, but it's really only been in recent years that their consumer market has grown to the point of being as relevant as their business market. Witness their recent attempts at making the UI more consumer-friendly.

I'd agree IE8 is definitely an improvement. Taking the decision to use a standards compliant rendering mode by default is a huge step forward.

My point was that web browser vendors should have to make more standards compliant browsers. If Opera's complaints to the EU help to achieve this then it's a good thing.

And who decides what web standards they have to adhere to? No browser, not a single one adheres to all the standards out there not even those that are passing Acid 3 which people like to use as the benchmark.

Obviously MS always met some of the standards otherwise web pages wouldn't have rendered at all. Beyond that it's probably impossible to measure and police what level of W3C support you must offer, especially when the standards themselves are constantly evolving too.

This is totally ridiculous. Opera is finding out the same thing that Netscape and every other commercial browser vendor did: nobody wants to buy a web browser. Witness Firefox, which is free: it's one of the top browsers. If you live in the EU you should be demanding that this office be investigated.

Opera is free. They only retail their mobile web browser now.

This has more to do with web standards anyway. Microsoft defining their own de facto web standards with Internet Explorer is bad thing for the web. It's also something I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a web developer by profession to understand either.

Before we go demanding any other investigations, MS seems to be on shaky ground to begin with. They are already a convicted monopolist, that has subsequently been "fined more than $1 billion in the past by EC after determining that Microsoft isn't living up to the terms of a 2004 antitrust settlement."

The $1.35 billion fine is in addition to the more than $1 billion in penalties that the EC originally imposed on Microsoft following the 2004 ruling.

In fact, Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision.

So from this it appears that not only is MS a convicted monopolist, but that it also doesn't honour its agreements.

it's a bit of an uphill battle in this regard.

LTD said,
Before we go demanding any other investigations, MS seems to be on shaky ground to begin with. They are already a convicted monopolist, that has subsequently been "fined more than $1 billion in the past by EC after determining that Microsoft isn't living up to the terms of a 2004 antitrust settlement."

The $1.35 billion fine is in addition to the more than $1 billion in penalties that the EC originally imposed on Microsoft following the 2004 ruling.

In fact, Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision.

So from this it appears that not only is MS a convicted monopolist, but that it also doesn't honour its agreements.

it's a bit of an uphill battle in this regard.

As I've told you before, there is no such thing as a conviction in any lawsuit. Convictions are a result of a criminal trial. The rest, I'll wait for your sources.

A monopoly means someone has sufficient control over a particular market or product.

That's not exactly an unfair way to describe Windows now is it.

ziadoz said,
A monopoly means someone has sufficient control over a particular market or product.

That's not exactly an unfair way to describe Windows now is it.


No a monopoly means where there is only 1 product and no alternatives.

There are alternatives, just because most computers have windows doesn't make it a monopoly.

Most OEMs offer linux options, and they could offer mac if apple allowed it. Now most people won't feel comfortable with linux, so they would go with what they know and thats Windows.

So tell me how does that make microsoft a monopoly?

GreyWolfSC said,

As I've told you before, there is no such thing as a conviction in any lawsuit. Convictions are a result of a criminal trial. The rest, I'll wait for your sources.

What sources? It's a matter of public record.

In United States v. Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.

As part of a subsequent appeal, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact, though the D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case. The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty.

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. . . . etc., etc.

So there you have it. MS is a monopolist. Not criminally, obviously! But Judge Jackson's findings of fact were accepted, and remain as fact today:

Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others.

Specifically, it all comes down to the findings of fact that have been accepted for the record. Jackson ruled that MS was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. The "findings of fact" during the antitrust case established that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC desktop operating systems market.

Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

The findings of fact go on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":

The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base... impels ISVs (independent software vendors) to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows... The small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows.

What? Microsoft crushed competition from Apple because Apple chose to limit their OS to their own, overpriced hardware only?

We know about the "barriers to entry" concept - then again, it was Apple who took action against clone PC makers and Microsoft who allowed IBM clones to propagate and run Windows freely.

This is how the market forces operate.

Software vendors operate on a policy of self-interest - as with all companies, as with all individuals. Governments may attempt to intervene, but it is futile unless they force vendors to develop and consistently update the Mac counterparts. This will remove the barriers to OS migration.

Unless, of course, EU acts on self-interest and takes the easy way out to squeeze more money out of Microsoft... Which is of no surprise.

Perhaps I should stop arguing with you any further. I have lurked long enough at Neowin to realise that old habits die hard. May God have mercy on your soul.

resol612 said,
What? Microsoft crushed competition from Apple because Apple chose to limit their OS to their own, overpriced hardware only?

We know about the "barriers to entry" concept - then again, it was Apple who took action against clone PC makers and Microsoft who allowed IBM clones to propagate and run Windows freely.

This is how the market forces operate.

Software vendors operate on a policy of self-interest - as with all companies, as with all individuals. Governments may attempt to intervene, but it is futile unless they force vendors to develop and consistently update the Mac counterparts. This will remove the barriers to OS migration.

Unless, of course, EU acts on self-interest and takes the easy way out to squeeze more money out of Microsoft... Which is of no surprise.

Perhaps I should stop arguing with you any further. I have lurked long enough at Neowin to realise that old habits die hard. May God have mercy on your soul.

There is a reason we have antitrust laws. If you'd like them repealed because you think they are unfair or have been applied unfairly, then that's a different story.

if i was ms i would stop selling to europe, then they will know what its like to mess about with them. windows is ms's software and they should include anythin they want, without other people telling them what to do.

Soldiers33 said,
if i was ms i would stop selling to europe, then they will know what its like to mess about with them. windows is ms's software and they should include anythin they want, without other people telling them what to do.

This is not a fight with the European population - they should not have to bear the burden of such a tactic. It is not a small market.

Oh for gods sake! Adding more browsers to windows will give us network admins a headach as these can't be easy updated on secured systems! If it's sold in the UK i can see this being not used at all.
I think IE should stay as all corperations use it for their LAN apps etc and in the end it would just kill their apps and that means spending more money on getting them fixed etc.
I can see it now the EU will just end up with etchasketchs.......
Me as a user i would rather have everything there so that i can turn on pc do install then go right on the net, not then wait for it to load, click some crap for to get another browser then somehow download that, then install it, then do this and that and dance a few times, because average joe would be long confused.
All they care about is pc, IE WMP done. Some people find that even hard to do.

Next up symantech to sue microsoft because they have RIS in server and dont use ghost or because they have a backup program in windows.

However they SHOULD not just go for one company, as if i remember correctly apple do the same.

I really do hope they add the ability of IE as a removable component. Come to think of it, there would be many components I would like to completely remove from the MS OS, but they are so interwoven into the OS, the OS cannot operate without them.

Windows Defender (dont use it, prefer dedicated 3rd party software)
Windows Media Player (use VLC or windows media player classic)
Internet Explorer (use firefox, and only IE when it doesn't work with FF3)
Windows Mail (Use Thunderbird)
Windows MSN (I use trilllian)
Windows Media Centre (complete waste of resources used up on my system for this, I have never EVER used it)
windows dvd maker (use nero)

Now this is my personal preference, I wont say its every ones, but MS becomes so bloated when I cannot remove the above software to install the software I want to use. For me the bloat is MS pre-installed things and they keep adding more and more tools and useless utilities, which are usually served better with 3rd party applications.
Now I am all for MS making these tools available, but on there website, not pre-installed or even on the dvd.

@k7of9
As to the whole not fair thing, imagine the Mozilla rating go up % wise if it was the default pre installed browser on MS, Internet Explorer's popularity drops as people decide to write web pages that are more wc3 compliant than MS only compliant. MS would lose control on the direction of certain technologies its pushing that haven't been sanctioned yet, but still make there way into the browser before its even been cleared or even accepted.
This is all hypothetical of course, but from my experience (internet cafe IT manager for 10 stores and over 600 client machines), our customers preferred browser is FF3 by about 10 to 1.]
Overall I think having something pre-installed will always make a % of people not bother with anything else, I could see that being the case with having FF3 being pre-installed on MS OS, how many people would actually go out and download IE, you will always get a large % not bothering with anything else.

Overall I think MS needs to concentrate on the OS and not all these extra tools built into the OS, as I said above, make them down loadable and see how popular they really are after wards. These are tools to be used on the OS, not a part of the OS.


These are tools to be used on the OS, not a part of the OS.

I feel in modern OS'es a browser is an essential part of providing a way for users to interact with their computer. Whether it's browsing the web or being able to download a different browser if it suits their needs better. If a portion of those users feel IE works for them I think that is fine. After all, it IS MS's product.
If you feel that an OS'es sole role is to manage files an launch applications, Windows would consist of a control panel and a CLI based file manager. Paint, wordpad, notepad, firewall, picture viewer, zip functionality, calculator, etc would all have to be removed from Windows as they are tools and not part of the OS. Can you imagine the average user dealing with that?

k7of9 said,
I feel in modern OS'es a browser is an essential part of providing a way for users to interact with their computer. Whether it's browsing the web or being able to download a different browser if it suits their needs better. If a portion of those users feel IE works for them I think that is fine. After all, it IS MS's product.
If you feel that an OS'es sole role is to manage files an launch applications, Windows would consist of a control panel and a CLI based file manager. Paint, wordpad, notepad, firewall, picture viewer, zip functionality, calculator, etc would all have to be removed from Windows as they are tools and not part of the OS. Can you imagine the average user dealing with that?


yeah, and then you would be complaining how microsoft makes a ****ty os because your third party software crashes as it can't find some dll's it has been using for years

Kirkburn said,
I should point out, neither Live Messenger or Windows Mail are part of Windows 7.


Acutally, when Windows 7 RTM's Windows Live Essentials will be shipped with it :).

Windows Defender (dont use it, prefer dedicated 3rd party software)
Windows Media Player (use VLC or windows media player classic)
Internet Explorer (use firefox, and only IE when it doesn't work with FF3)
Windows Mail (Use Thunderbird)
Windows MSN (I use trilllian)
Windows Media Centre (complete waste of resources used up on my system for this, I have never EVER used it)
windows dvd maker (use nero)


I don't know what crack you smoke but let me correct you.

All that software is removable without any lasting harm, apart from maybe IE. Plus windows MSN doesn't even exist in Vista as it is just a downloaad link.

Yellowperil Windows defender is very easily disabled and not as interwoven as you think. You don't have to use WMP or WMC you could just remove their icons from the start menu (or get an SKU without them). Mail has been disscontinued and MSN was not included in Vista. DVD maker, just remove the icon if it hacks you off that much.

I don't use wordpad but don't feel the need to remove it. If your worried about it taking all that HD space get out the 90's and invest in a new hard drive.

RebelSean said,
Acutally, when Windows 7 RTM's Windows Live Essentials will be shipped with it :).

Er, source? Cause they won't.

McDave said,
Yellowperil Windows defender is very easily disabled and not as interwoven as you think. You don't have to use WMP or WMC you could just remove their icons from the start menu (or get an SKU without them). Mail has been disscontinued and MSN was not included in Vista. DVD maker, just remove the icon if it hacks you off that much.

I don't use wordpad but don't feel the need to remove it. If your worried about it taking all that HD space get out the 90's and invest in a new hard drive.


As far as Windows Defender, it is NOT an anti-virus program; installing one (in most cases) will also stop Defender. (That is certainly true of McAfee, which I use in Windows Vista, and Avast! Home Edition, which I use in Windows 7 x64; the first is free from my broadband provider, namely Comcast, and the second is free for noncommercial use.) I only use Windows Media Center because I have a TV tuner (ATI's HDTV Wonder) and WMC stomps all over ATI's own TV app or any of the various alternatives (such as ChrisTV Online). (In this case, "stomps all over" means that WMC is simply the better application, as while ATI's TV applet does not work in Vista, ChrisTV Online does.) I use VideoLAN Media Player for video (which is free) and Creative MediaSource 5 for audio. (Notice that WMP is nowhere on the list.)

WordPad? Oh, please! WordPad is a VERY generic (barely more than an Enhanced Notepad) text application that has its roots in Windows Write (from the 3.x days), but gained the additional ability to spit out Word (and WordPerfect) compatible documents *because the users requested it*! I don't use it (for any reason) because I have Microsoft Word (and for certain conversion projects, OpenOffice.org Writer lets me spit out PDFs from documents I create in either Writer or Word; oh, OO is also free for noncommercial use).

E-mail? Covered by Outlook (included with my copy of Office 2007). Despite Thunderbird (free) Eudora (now based on Thunderbird, and also free) or even Windows Live Mail (which has replaced both Windows Mail and Outlook Express, and is, you guessed it, free), no other e-mail application has the ease of use and power behind it that Outlook does (and I use it strictly for POP3 mail from my ISP).

DVD Maker? Another application I don't use; instead I use Nero.

Notice that there are quite a number of non-Microsoft applications on my current-use list (McAfee actually replaced Windows Live OneCare, a Microsoft application, which is being discontinued). In no case did a Microsoft application prevent me from trying out, or even switching to, an alternative application.

Hard drive space? That argument plain and simply does NOT fly, as hard drive space has gotten cheaper and cheaper over the years since the original judgement against Microsoft. A typical desktop hard drive today (500 GB, and that estimate may actually be low) is, when bought retail, $70USD (fourteen cents per gigabyte), and sales and larger-capacity drives push the cost down to as low as ten cents per gigabyte. (While the larger drives are SATA, not PATA/IDE, that is easily remedied with SATA controller cards, so even the oldest of functional PCs can have the newest of drive technologies.)

So what is the EU Commission eating in Brussels (and is it legal)?

And may we now see Apple get sued for including Safari (and forcing you to use Safari to change the default browser), KDE get sued for including Konqueror, Gnome get sued for including Epiphany. The fact is, all operating systems include their own browser. And I wonder how Opera wants users to download their browser, if Windows has no browser....
They should probably look at their product and wonder why they still only have under 1 % marketshare when Firefox now has 20 % instead of blaming Microsoft. Next they'll probably be blaming Mozilla for unfair competition.

Yep. Mozilla doesn't seem to have any problems getting Firefox off the ground. Google neither, despite the fact that they've just started.

Has anyone seen the advert at the bottom of this page?
"Keith Fink / Sued for malpractice" "and extortion."

How topical.

There we go again...the same old crap all over again.

I guess it's the end of Windows Explorer included in Windows as well. I mean, there are loads of other file managers out there and they don't get a good chance because of Windows Explorer being included...

The sad thing is that the EU says/thinks they act in service of the consumer. They forced MS to release a Windows version without WMP. Nobody buys it! So how is that of any use of the consumer? It's ridiculous and a total waste of money.

And hasn't the popularity of Firefox (and emerging popularity of Chrome) not proven that other browser are able to be successfull and able to reach a customer base? Browser competition hasn't been this good since the early Netscape days! Just because Opera hasn't been able to do the same doesn't make it unfair just for them. They might just want to ask themselves why they don't succeed in getting more market share instead of pointing to MS.

IE is fine where it is, leave it. And I'm a Firefox user, so not biased to IE.

Microsoft can do something like:
- provide a web-browser chooser in Windows 7 that launches say www.microsoft.com/choosedefaultbrowser.
On that page, they can keep a list (and update it) of current Windows browsers. Once you start "lite IE", you'll be requested to choose and install a browser.
It's a simple and nice solution IMHO.

g0dlike said,
Microsoft can do something like:
- provide a web-browser chooser in Windows 7 that launches say www.microsoft.com/choosedefaultbrowser.
On that page, they can keep a list (and update it) of current Windows browsers. Once you start "lite IE", you'll be requested to choose and install a browser.
It's a simple and nice solution IMHO.


Sure, which one do you think an ordinary user having little knowledge about the differences of all the browsers would choose, for all they care they just want their email, not making uninformed decisions!

"Hey, I know about Internet Explorer, I will just use that!"

And we are back to square one. EU: "IE usage is still high, we want change or pay up!"

Nave said,


Sure, which one do you think an ordinary user having little knowledge about the differences of all the browsers would choose, for all they care they just want their email, not making uninformed decisions!

"Hey, I know about Internet Explorer, I will just use that!"

And we are back to square one. EU: "IE usage is still high, we want change or pay up!"


Basically, Windows already does this, you have 'default applications', and the OEMs can install Firefox or whatever they want on the computers as well. A user can buy a computer from an OEM and never see or use IE as it is today.

What the EU wants is the IE HTML rendering removed, meaning they want to break 3rd party applicaitons that use the IE engine, which hurts other companies more than it will hurt Microsoft. (Microsoft doesn't make money off of IE and doesn't give a crap if you use it or not in the long run.)

Nope - there should drop cmd from Windows as well. I'm sure there are some 3rd party consoles...


@dlegend
I wouldn't say people at EU are idiots. It's just people in EU government are idiots and retards, not EU people. I wonder why does those idiots doesn't care of Google Chrome. The browser stick you to Google Search and doesn't let you an ability to use any other search engine from the address bar.

coth said,
Nope - there should drop cmd from Windows as well. I'm sure there are some 3rd party consoles...


@dlegend
I wouldn't say people at EU are idiots. It's just people in EU government are idiots and retards, not EU people. I wonder why does those idiots doesn't care of Google Chrome. The browser stick you to Google Search and doesn't let you an ability to use any other search engine from the address bar.


Additionally, chrome sends marketing information back to Google so they can target ads based on your browsing... Nice, uh? Firefox also use to send information back to Google before their falling out with the Chrome release as wel.

IE is forbidden from doing this and doesn't send information based on your browsing, and in fact IE8 blocks sites from tracking you by embedding pixels and other ad monitoring techniques in web pages.

Also IE lets you install ANY search engine into the search bar and set Google or Ask or Yahoo or whatever as your default search engine.


The EU must need some more cash again. I guess especially with the economic crisis.

It condemns Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and not allowing to bundle other web browsers with Windows. The complaint also urges Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities.

Bundling other browsers? Wow, I should have like 4 more browsers I might never use to be bundled with Windows, and uninstall them one by one. Why not just allow users to use IE to find another browser to download? MS isn't stopping anyone. Why not force other operating systems to do the same? Oh wait, it's because MS has all the money.

I agree about comply to open Web standards, but it's already been seen in IE8 that's Microsoft is fully committing (though after a long time) to open Web standards. There could be more, but it has the basic gist now.

So this SoO is dumb. Perhaps Microsoft should retaliate by offering a special EU version of Windows without any web browsers built-in. Of course, it won't sell and it will cost a little money for no value, but at least Microsoft is showing how idiotic the EU is, and how it's pretty anti-consumer forcing MS to comply to this thing.

Better yet, they should stop selling Windows in the EU for six months while demanding that law enforcement crack down on piracy of it. Let them drain the EU's funds instead of the other way around for a change.

GreyWolfSC said,
Better yet, they should stop selling Windows in the EU for six months while demanding that law enforcement crack down on piracy of it. Let them drain the EU's funds instead of the other way around for a change.

ZOMG This is the ultimate EPIC WIN.

GreyWolfSC said,
Better yet, they should stop selling Windows in the EU for six months while demanding that law enforcement crack down on piracy of it. Let them drain the EU's funds instead of the other way around for a change.

Indeed. Epic

GreyWolfSC said,
Better yet, they should stop selling Windows in the EU for six months while demanding that law enforcement crack down on piracy of it. Let them drain the EU's funds instead of the other way around for a change.


QFT

I agree with everyone else. The people at the EU are idiots. News like this ****es me off. As others have said, how are people supposed to get online to download a web browser without a web browser built in? MS would be severely crippling Windows by having no web browser included. What a load of crap!

Yep I agree, just like the people at the usa are idiots too but that is politics, how else are they going to fund flying all over the world to talk about global warning.

These EU bitches are so tiring already. I think somebody has to fire those people. They KEEP on reviewing how Microsoft is hurting them artifically. Buying Microsoft Product is just a one time every 3 years expenses (about 1% of poeple's money in 3 years) and it wouldn't really matter.

EU should review the OPEC instead since every consumer in the world spends at least 20% of their money in OIL. Reducing the monopoly of OIL will definitely impact the world.

Breaking News: EU declares Microsoft in violation of anti-trust laws because Microsoft Windows installs an operating system called Windows, which gives them an unfair advantage over competitors.

Great! This means there will be additional versions of VISTA and the future Windows 7 sold in Europe, with and without IE to give me as a European citizen more "Choice" Of course the EU is looking after my best interest as a citizen, it has nothing to do with them using Microsoft as another source of income Well at least another billion for the EU will help to fix that budget deficit.

Sounds like the European Comission have shares in Apple.

So mac is allowed to include it's browser, chat tool, email tool, perental controls, quicktime and no one batts an eyelid. MS are told however sorry you made a good produt but we want you to take out featurs you spent time and money creating.

Can just see the headlines now, Microsoft pay Dell & HP $XX Million euro to install IE on windows computers.

McDave said,
Sounds like the European Comission have shares in Apple.

Nah, they've spent the last wad of Microsoft cash already and need more.

I'll just repeat was has been stated before.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.

LTD said,
I'll just repeat was has been stated before.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.


You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true.

What of IE7 and IE8 then? Are you telling us that isn't based on standard either? IE has less support for the newer standards, true. But that's doesn't mean it isn't based on them.

Also, why should the most popular OS be crippled, whilst OS X can do whatever it wants?

Kirkburn said,

You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true.

What of IE7 and IE8 then? Are you telling us that isn't based on standard either? IE has less support for the newer standards, true. But that's doesn't mean it isn't based on them.

Also, why should the most popular OS be crippled, whilst OS X can do whatever it wants?

I'm just reiterating the legal determinations that have already been made. Apple is not a monopoly. It competes in the same market as Windows.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

Apple is not convicted monopolist. It doesn't have a monopoly be default because it has been determined that Apple competes in the same market as MS.

LTD said,

I'm just reiterating the legal determinations that have already been made. Apple is not a monopoly. It competes in the same market as Windows.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

Apple is not convicted monopolist. It doesn't have a monopoly be default because it has been determined that Apple competes in the same market as MS.

Please provide links to this determination that Apple is not a monopoly. I don't remember them being charged with it yet. Today I intend to write a letter to my state AG today to complain of Apple's unfair tying of their media player to their music store and software, since, as you well know, iPod has a monopoly on portable media players. If you want to put music on your iPod you MUST use Apple's software and it also happens to be a music store.

LTD said,


I'm just reiterating the legal determinations that have already been made. Apple is not a monopoly. It competes in the same market as Windows.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

Apple is not convicted monopolist. It doesn't have a monopoly be default because it has been determined that Apple competes in the same market as MS.


Good luck LTD - so far you seem to the only fanboy thats vehemently defending Apple at all costs hahaha....you must be praying everyday for Jobs to come back too

Antitrust claims have been made against Apple in the US. None of them have been successful to date. There is precedent in this area. You don't need a separate case to have that. It's based on actionable claims, regardless of whatever legal context they arise in. I simply posted one of decisions. Feel free to find others.

And reading comprehension isn't grown. It's acquired.

Mista T said,
Good luck LTD - so far you seem to the only fanboy thats vehemently defending Apple at all costs hahaha....you must be praying everyday for Jobs to come back too

Just posting facts.

thenonhacker said,
LTD has stocks in Apple.

Nope.

I'm just posting the legal reasoning behind Apple's position, which to date has not been challenged successfully.

LTD said,
Antitrust claims have been made against Apple in the US. None of them have been successful to date. There is precedent in this area. You don't need a separate case to have that. It's based on actionable claims, regardless of whatever legal context they arise in. I simply posted one of decisions. Feel free to find others.

And reading comprehension isn't grown. It's acquired.

Then you haven't found it yet. That case was Apple vs. Psystar.

Apple accused Psystar of violating their copyright by distributing patched version of their product. The judge was correct in dismissing the antitrust counter-claim because it is irrelevant to the original case. Apple's alleged anti-competitive behavior did not justify Psystar's violation of existing copyright law. Antitrust suits are brought by a government on behalf of it citizens. Your citation has no relevance whatsoever to this case, nor does it vindicate Apple's monopolistic behavior.

GreyWolfSC said,

Then you haven't found it yet. That case was Apple vs. Psystar.

Apple accused Psystar of violating their copyright by distributing patched version of their product. The judge was correct in dismissing the antitrust counter-claim because it is irrelevant to the original case. Apple's alleged anti-competitive behavior did not justify Psystar's violation of existing copyright law. Antitrust suits are brought by a government on behalf of it citizens. Your citation has no relevance whatsoever to this case, nor does it vindicate Apple's monopolistic behavior.

A determination was made with respect to the question of whether Apple, with OS X, was engaging in a monopoly. A decision was made in that regard. This is precedent. And simply adds to the body of precedent as it regards to Apple in this area.

This doesn't preclude anyone from filing a new antitrust claim against Apple. There are, however, already rulings (precedent) in this area that will, as a matter of legal principle and procedure, influence future judgments.

I really can't understand you siding with stupidity. Just because Microsoft is in the position it is, that is should be held to rules that no one else has to follow?

The goal is to push companies to succeed people! But don't succeed too much, or we'll have to handicap you and make you follow rules that make no sense and that not even the users want. We're going to make you waste money for your success by spending time on versions that NO ONE wants. Oh, and if you don't do it, you have to give us money anyway!

Bleh, this is retarded...

dead.cell said,
I really can't understand you siding with stupidity. Just because Microsoft is in the position it is, that is should be held to rules that no one else has to follow?

Microsoft is in a position not occupied by the other industry players. This brings with it new circumstances and the potential for abuse (which MS has already engaged in.) It's why we have antitrust laws in the first place.

LTD most people would agree they love how Mac just works. You have iChat, iTunes & Safari what I would call basic features Media and Communication. However all these features are being stripped out of Windows because it's monopolistic. It's not like Microsoft is trying to see you any more features with these programs unlike iTunes. How ****ed you would be if Amazon said sorry we think installing iTunes on Mac is wrong because it stops people having to choose what music store they use?

Actually in this case Apple are just as guilty as Microsoft as both companys install their own brand browser regardless of who sells more units. Opera could run on either. It's not fair to have one rule for one and one for anther.

For me this is not a Windows vs Mac vs Linux or IE vs Safari vs Firefox. It̢۪s about other companies telling you that you can't make your software better because they want users to install their crap instead. It does not matter what community you belong to because if you let this go on it will affect everyone.

LTD said,
I'll just repeat was has been stated before.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows.


Please share where the EU has determined that OS X is not a monopoly.

As far as I'm aware, the Pystar case (which is on-going) has only been heard in the US courts. According to this filing by the EU, US court findings in anti-competitive matters have no impact on the EU / EC and they must be handled separately.

Brandon Live said,

Please share where the EU has determined that OS X is not a monopoly.

As far as I'm aware, the Pystar case (which is on-going) has only been heard in the US courts. According to this filing by the EU, US court findings in anti-competitive matters have no impact on the EU / EC and they must be handled separately.

The EU hasn't determined anything regarding OS X. That's for them to decide. And when the times comes, they will. Until then, Windows is the issue and I remain unconcerned about OS X in the EU.

You simply CANNOT download anything, including browser, from the net without IE on Windows. I have read a comment on Slashdot: Sure you can wget Opera or other browsers you like in *nix, but IT IS WINDOWS!

I agree some points stated above by others: Mac OS X comes with Safari too, when will it be removed?

I absolutely do NOT support this bloody stupid "objection" to IE, but I feel I must correct you. To say that Windows cannot download anything without IE is factually incorrect.

The command line includes a small program called ftp.exe. Anyone with the know how can use this tool to locate and download a browser of their choice. Sure, it means you need to know how to use it and where to get the browsers, but it IS factually possible to download in Windows without IE.

GraphiteCube said,
You simply CANNOT download anything, including browser, from the net without IE on Windows. I have read a comment on Slashdot: Sure you can wget Opera or other browsers you like in *nix, but IT IS WINDOWS!

I agree some points stated above by others: Mac OS X comes with Safari too, when will it be removed?


Actually you can FTP or obtain another browser several ways with Windows, it doesn't have 'less' functionality in this area than *nix.

However, it would be a pain in the ass for the average EU user.

I hope the EU keeps this crap up, because they might just get what they are asking for and crush their own consumer computer markets.

Sun asked MS to stop distributing JAVA, and that worked really well for them too... Oh wait, it crushed the JAVA market and set it back 10 years.

Go EU, you might actually get what you want, and everyone in Europe will be running *nix and your companies will be struggling to compete with the modern world, as EUROPE does not define the software markets or the software produced - and the rest of the world running Windows will dominate and EU will be the technical 3rd world.

This has happened several times already, and can very much happen again.

The EU should be smarter than this. They should realize how hard it is to get 'localized' versions of *nix distributions or consistent distributions that fully support the local languages and keyboard layouts. What a freaking nightmare.

In the 1980s, Europe was Atari crazy, and although I liked the Atari ST, it let Europe's computer progress fall behind the rest of the world using IBM/Apple.

Oh, and OS X, doesn't support all the languages/keyboards of the main countries of the EU, let alone all the variations of outlying countries - so good luck with that as well.

When it comes down to it, this is more about politics and an semi-American company having this much control over the technology they use. However, they seem to forget they still have are hostage to Intel/AMD and other North American companies to provide 90% of the aspects of the computer. Adding the OS to the North American influence is really not such a bigh thing in this context.

Side note on IE:
Microsoft originally made IE to be an OS level HTML rendering engine, the browser was a site note, and at the developers conference expected people to use the IE DLLs to create their own browsers.

Microsoft originally wanted Netscape, but Netscape refused, as it would have been too hard to port the 3.x/4.x Netscape 'browser' technology to just an HTML renderer to be accessed from other applications.

IE is more of a result of programmer's use of a technology than the Browser itself. (AOL and other companies used the IE engine for years, even when AOL owned netscape.)


---
Anyway, go for it EU, put the screws to Microsoft, you seem to think it will go over politically and that you can live without MS technologies. Then great, do it, see how that works out for ya in 5 years.

(I honestly don't think the Obama administration will silently stand by and watch the EU smack around an American company, even during the monopoly 'farce' of the 90s, the Clinton administration told the EU to back off Microsoft.)

GraphiteCube said,
You simply CANNOT download anything, including browser, from the net without IE on Windows. I have read a comment on Slashdot: Sure you can wget Opera or other browsers you like in *nix, but IT IS WINDOWS!

I agree some points stated above by others: Mac OS X comes with Safari too, when will it be removed?

It doesn't need to be removed.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.

LTD said,

It doesn't need to be removed.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.

It most certainly does, and they link between iTunes and the iPod needs to be broken as well... And the link between Mac and OSX. They are all a closed-system monopoly.

LTD said
It doesn't need to be removed.


Yes it does.

LTD said
OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market.


It is on Mac hardware, and the same sort of generic end-users that don't care what browser they use, use OS X and thusly Safari.

LTD said
And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.


Irrelevant + IE8.

GreyWolfSC said,

It most certainly does, and they link between iTunes and the iPod needs to be broken as well... And the link between Mac and OSX. They are all a closed-system monopoly.

OS X is not a monopoly. This as already been determined legally and very recently in the Psystar case last August.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11...nterclaims.html

It has been determined that OS X competes in the same market as Windows, and is therefore not a monopoly. Apple and OS X are not markets unto themselves. There are no facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors. Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so.

Central to Psystar's complaint was that Apple̢۪s Mac OS X operating system is not reasonably interchangeable with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and therefore comprises its own distinct market. The clone maker alleged that Apple has engaged in various forms of anti-competitive conduct in order to "protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market" and that it has also run advertising campaigns to help define the Mac OS as a product separate and distinct from other operating systems.

Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed, noting that the definition of an antitrust "relevant market" is typically a factual rather than a legal inquiry, but certain legal principles govern the definition.

"Whether products are part of the same or different markets under antitrust law depends on whether consumers view those products as reasonable substitutes for each other and would switch among them in response to changes in relative prices," he wrote.

As the Supreme Court has instructed, “The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” [Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962)]. As such, the relevant market must include “the group or groups of sellers or producers who have actual or potential ability to deprive each other of significant levels of business.” Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay ‘N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1374 (9th Cir.1989).

In theory, Judge Alsup said it may be possible that, in rare and unforeseen circumstances, a relevant market may consist of only one brand of a product, but added that Psystar's pleadings "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple̢۪s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

Judge Alsup added that Psystar's pleading as a whole do not prove the Mac OS is an independent, single-product market, but instead work against the clone maker in providing several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

"The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."

"Psystar also points to Apple̢۪s extensive advertising campaigns," he continued. "Those advertising campaigns more plausibly support an inference contrary to that asserted in the counterclaim -- vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple̢۪s vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."

As such, the judge concluded that Psystar's counterclaim does not plausibly allege that Mac OS is an independent market. He noted that unlike a case cited by the clone maker involving Kodak -- where customers did not knowingly bind themselves to a single brand that later prohibited them from switching among competitors in the primary market -- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems.

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

The judge also dismissed the remainder of Psystar's stated claims for a lack of sufficient evidence to back them up, including allegations that Apple is violating the common law of unfair competition, the Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.

"For the above-stated reasons, Psystar̢۪s claim that Mac OS-compatible computer hardware systems constitute a distinct submarket or aftermarket contravenes the pertinent legal standards, and Apple̢۪s motion to dismiss Psystar̢۪s federal counterclaims is therefore granted," he wrote.

LTD said,


OS X is not a monopoly. This as already been determined legally and very recently in the Psystar case last August.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11...nterclaims.html

It has been determined that OS X competes in the same market as Windows, and is therefore not a monopoly. Apple and OS X are not markets unto themselves. There are no facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors. Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so.

Central to Psystar's complaint was that Apple̢۪s Mac OS X operating system is not reasonably interchangeable with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and therefore comprises its own distinct market. The clone maker alleged that Apple has engaged in various forms of anti-competitive conduct in order to "protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market" and that it has also run advertising campaigns to help define the Mac OS as a product separate and distinct from other operating systems.

Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed, noting that the definition of an antitrust "relevant market" is typically a factual rather than a legal inquiry, but certain legal principles govern the definition.

"Whether products are part of the same or different markets under antitrust law depends on whether consumers view those products as reasonable substitutes for each other and would switch among them in response to changes in relative prices," he wrote.

As the Supreme Court has instructed, “The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” [Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962)]. As such, the relevant market must include “the group or groups of sellers or producers who have actual or potential ability to deprive each other of significant levels of business.” Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay ‘N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1374 (9th Cir.1989).

In theory, Judge Alsup said it may be possible that, in rare and unforeseen circumstances, a relevant market may consist of only one brand of a product, but added that Psystar's pleadings "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple̢۪s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

Judge Alsup added that Psystar's pleading as a whole do not prove the Mac OS is an independent, single-product market, but instead work against the clone maker in providing several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

"The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."

"Psystar also points to Apple̢۪s extensive advertising campaigns," he continued. "Those advertising campaigns more plausibly support an inference contrary to that asserted in the counterclaim -- vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple̢۪s vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."

As such, the judge concluded that Psystar's counterclaim does not plausibly allege that Mac OS is an independent market. He noted that unlike a case cited by the clone maker involving Kodak -- where customers did not knowingly bind themselves to a single brand that later prohibited them from switching among competitors in the primary market -- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems.

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

The judge also dismissed the remainder of Psystar's stated claims for a lack of sufficient evidence to back them up, including allegations that Apple is violating the common law of unfair competition, the Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.

"For the above-stated reasons, Psystar̢۪s claim that Mac OS-compatible computer hardware systems constitute a distinct submarket or aftermarket contravenes the pertinent legal standards, and Apple̢۪s motion to dismiss Psystar̢۪s federal counterclaims is therefore granted," he wrote.


"OS X is not a monopoly. This as already been determined legally and very recently in the Psystar case last August. It has been determined that OS X competes in the same market as Windows, and is therefore not a monopoly. Apple and OS X are not markets unto themselves."

How many times are you going to repeat that statement?

And you dont think Apple wishis OSX was in the same market as Windows? When EU gets on Apple's case about iTunes I love to see what you have to say then..............

LTD said,
OS X is not a monopoly. This as already been determined legally and very recently in the Psystar case last August.

It most certainly is. It is easily demonstrable that OSX will run on non-Apple hardware. It is designed to not allow that. It is also available retail. Conclusion: Apple wants you to buy THEIR hardware to run OSX even though the hardware you already own is CAPABLE of running it. Decision: MONOPOLY

GreyWolfSC said,
It most certainly is. It is easily demonstrable that OSX will run on non-Apple hardware. It is designed to not allow that. It is also available retail. Conclusion: Apple wants you to buy THEIR hardware to run OSX even though the hardware you already own is CAPABLE of running it. Decision: MONOPOLY

Whatever you say.

I've posted the salient legal judgment in this area as it relates to Apple. The legal definition and standard of "monopoly" has already been defined. It's been determined that Apple does not meet that standard.

You're most certainly free to disagree with it.

FloatingFatMan said,
I absolutely do NOT support this bloody stupid "objection" to IE, but I feel I must correct you. To say that Windows cannot download anything without IE is factually incorrect.

The command line includes a small program called ftp.exe. Anyone with the know how can use this tool to locate and download a browser of their choice. Sure, it means you need to know how to use it and where to get the browsers, but it IS factually possible to download in Windows without IE.


If Microsoft has to remove IE then they should also remove FTP program to be fair to other companies that make FTP programs. It is just another bundled program with windows. Then the people of the EU would have an even harder time getting a browser.

LTD said,
Whatever you say.

I've posted the salient legal judgment in this area as it relates to Apple. The legal definition and standard of "monopoly" has already been defined. It's been determined that Apple does not meet that standard.

You're most certainly free to disagree with it.


Because the definition of a "market" can be easily twisted and turned - anyone who takes elementary Economics would easily comprehend that.

But that also means that the wall of text you have posted earlier are just fluff with no substance - doesn't change the fact that you require Apple hardware just to run OSX.

Perhaps you would do yourself a greater favour if you stop running away from counterclaims and repeat the same, incorrect lines time and time again. It gets boring.

resol612 said,

Because the definition of a "market" can be easily twisted and turned - anyone who takes elementary Economics would easily comprehend that.

But that also means that the wall of text you have posted earlier are just fluff with no substance - doesn't change the fact that you require Apple hardware just to run OSX.

Perhaps you would do yourself a greater favour if you stop running away from counterclaims and repeat the same, incorrect lines time and time again. It gets boring.

It's part of a legal ruling. You're free to call it names, or call me names. But I've posted facts. And facts aren't always exciting. Oh well.

LTD said,

It's part of a legal ruling. You're free to call it names, or call me names. But I've posted facts. And facts aren't always exciting. Oh well.

It is not part of a legal ruling! The judge in the Apple vs. Psystar case dismissed the antitrust counter-claim. He did not rule on it. How hard is it for that to sink in?

GreyWolfSC said,

It is not part of a legal ruling! The judge in the Apple vs. Psystar case dismissed the antitrust counter-claim. He did not rule on it. How hard is it for that to sink in?

Allegations of monopolistic practices were presented against Apple. The judge addressed those allegations. His reasons were clearly outlined. It's now part of legal precedent. The reasons for the dismissal of those allegations are not only a matter of public record, but also carry legal weight. It adds to the body of precedent in matters relating to those allegations.

And regardless, to date there has been no successful claim against Apple with respect to antitrust.

If Apple doesn't have a monopoly with OS X in the Mac market, because OS X competes with Windows, then how does Windows have a monopoly?

Nevermind the fact that other browsers are competing just fine against IE, and in Firefox's case *without* even being bundled on the system (and likely Chrome's marketshare will increase as Google continues to get OEMs to bundle it). So why is Firefox so successful? Because it works and people like it. Why is Opera not successful? Because it sucks.

It's the same thing that Real did. They whined to the EU because nobody used Real Player. Yet millions of people used iTunes, WinAMP, and other competitors to WMP.

Brandon Live said,
If Apple doesn't have a monopoly with OS X in the Mac market, because OS X competes with Windows, then how does Windows have a monopoly?

Nevermind the fact that other browsers are competing just fine against IE, and in Firefox's case *without* even being bundled on the system (and likely Chrome's marketshare will increase as Google continues to get OEMs to bundle it). So why is Firefox so successful? Because it works and people like it. Why is Opera not successful? Because it sucks.

It's the same thing that Real did. They whined to the EU because nobody used Real Player. Yet millions of people used iTunes, WinAMP, and other competitors to WMP.

Go complain to the courts.

I happened to agree with their ruling then, and MS is still suspect today.

A monopoly isn't the only issue. It's also about abuse of that monopoly.

LTD said,


It doesn't need to be removed.

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.


FYI LTD, according to Wikipedia:

"In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Think about it for a second and tell me again why OS X on a Mac isn't a monopoly? Or for that matter the way that Apple is the sole manufacturer and reseller of their product?

Kettle, meet the pot.

stevehoot said,

FYI LTD, according to Wikipedia:

"In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Think about it for a second and tell me again why OS X on a Mac isn't a monopoly? Or for that matter the way that Apple is the sole manufacturer and reseller of their product?

Kettle, meet the pot.

Worthless.

Show me the law. Show me, and everyone else on this thread the legal precedent in this area and how Apple has been found to be in breach by the courts.

LTD said,
Worthless.

Show me the law. Show me, and everyone else on this thread the legal precedent in this area and how Apple has been found to be in breach by the courts.


It's fun to watch you desperately hold onto legal proceedings, because otherwise you have no argument.

You know, as a fanboy, you should take it upon yourself to study the history of Apple,

Maybe you should start with how Apple tried to monopolize the PC industry by copyrighting the desktop environment, and suing everyone else, including Microsoft, from trying to compete with them.

Or maybe we should go back a little further, when Apple stole their GUI concepts from Xerox labs, and then luckily got out of a lawsuit by technicality, due to statue of limitations.

Apple was monopolizing the PC market before Windows 1.0 was even released, and it took a court ruling to stop them. And yet, you like to do your little song and dance about court rulings against Microsoft. I don't see Windows Mobile getting sued for locking the phone's compatibility.

Your hypocrisy is astounding, LTD. Apple supporters are branded as complete snobs because of little punks like you. Your actions continue to put a negative stigma on the very brand you support, and I'm sure Steve Jobs, in reality, hates people like you for doing so.

It's really funny to watch, though.

stevehoot said,
Or for that matter the way that Apple is the sole manufacturer and reseller of their product?

At one point Apple did allow clones to be made. They stopped that practice when the clone makers were selling more Mac compatible clones than Apple were selling in genuine Macs.

Well, it's only a matter of time before the EU brings charges against Microsoft for having a monopoly on operating systems. When you think about it, alternative browsers fair rather well against IE. Alternative OSes do not.

What other alternative commercial operating systems? OSX? You can't install that on a regular PC. And Linux is free. I don't understand why Microsoft is targeted for including a browser in their OS distribution and Apple can sit there and happily tie all of their hardware and software together into a tightly-controlled loop otherwise known as a monopoly.

GreyWolfSC said,
What other alternative commercial operating systems? OSX? You can't install that on a regular PC. And Linux is free. I don't understand why Microsoft is targeted for including a browser in their OS distribution and Apple can sit there and happily tie all of their hardware and software together into a tightly-controlled loop otherwise known as a monopoly.

Because Microsoft has over 100 billion cash in company reserves alone. It is nothing but a money grab, pure and simple.

The government only wants money. They rob their citizens, and they rob the fattest companies. The EU is just much more shameless about it, LOL.

I believe Microsoft should just react by completely eliminating Internet Explorer and all other browsers from Windows copies sold in Europe. That'll be sure to get a negative reaction from people in Europe, since of course without a browser you cannot download a copy of another browser, right? Hehe, a dirty trick but I bet it would work when the majority of people start petitioning that certain law. Here's an idea MS, why not just cut off all Windows sales in the supporting countries for a bit? Just long enough to scare people a little.

What else is MS supposed to do? Include Firefox? Supporting your own goddamn software is not against the law. And if it is over there in Europe, things need to change.

IE in no way prevents competition, it simply provides a basic browser which is meant to increase OS functionality. People can choose their own browser on their own. If Microsoft has to start including Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Netscape, Mozilla, and what not, then people won't just get confused, it'll start causing bloat, and people will have a whole other thing to complain about. This lawsuit is a perfect example of trying to get a piece of those MS $$$ that everyone thinks they should have. I'm 14 and I thought out how this wouldn't work, I hope the top brass over there in Europe have big enough brains to think before they do, because that trait isn't showing much from the little logic that's involved in this case.

This will be like that lawsuit that made MS have to create a version of Windows XP without Windows Media Player included for Europe. Result: EU was happy, not a single sould bought that version.

However, I think this whole thing back in 1996 started not because IE is part of Windows, but because it is integrated in Windows Explorer and MS says it cannot get rid of it, just because it is integrated in Windows.

But yes, this is absurd. Deliver a Windows version without any browser. How are people supposed to download their favorite browser then?

In any case, I don't believe anything will come out of this. If MS has been dodging this since 1996, they are getting very good at it

I am a Firefox user, and I say I am fine with Internet Explorer integrated with Windows. Without Internet Explorer, how can you choose to download other browsers? I say, EU should be thankful that Internet Explorer is there, because it takes away the hassles from users to find a way download software that they want.

It would be funny to see though. Windows, without WMP or IE. Call it "Windows 7¾" or "Windows 7 D²" for dumbed down. :P

thenonhacker said,
I am a Firefox user, and I say I am fine with Internet Explorer integrated with Windows. Without Internet Explorer, how can you choose to download other browsers? I say, EU should be thankful that Internet Explorer is there, because it takes away the hassles from users to find a way download software that they want.

Wow. Never thought of it that way, but that's so true.

I also don't think they realize that IE is integrated in thousands of applications for Windows. Removing IE will not only f**k up Windows, but it'll also f**k up 50% of the applications we use today.

Recon415 said,
I also don't think they realize that IE is integrated in thousands of applications for Windows. Removing IE will not only f**k up Windows, but it'll also f**k up 50% of the applications we use today.

Not very smart to integrate IE so deeply. Bad for the user (absolutely horrible in terms of security), and bad for MS. That's part of the reason we're at this point.

LTD said,
Not very smart to integrate IE so deeply. Bad for the user (absolutely horrible in terms of security), and bad for MS. That's part of the reason we're at this point.


Think you'll find that Apple's Safari works the same on OSX. Various Apple applications make use of the rendering engine, if not the whole of Safari.

The same way that apps like Steam and others simply call up MSHTML.dll for API based access to the rendering engine. This way developers can create their basic application (e.g. window, forms, buttons for basic navigation use) and simply have the majority of their app running on a clustered webfarm.

So in fact it's very smart to have IE's rendering engine sitting as DLL that 3rd party apps can use by simply calling an API.

Take a few minutes to stop trolling against Windows/IE (Mac fanboys are such bad losers) and do some research first.

stevehoot said,
Think you'll find that Apple's Safari works the same on OSX. Various Apple applications make use of the rendering engine, if not the whole of Safari.

The same way that apps like Steam and others simply call up MSHTML.dll for API based access to the rendering engine. This way developers can create their basic application (e.g. window, forms, buttons for basic navigation use) and simply have the majority of their app running on a clustered webfarm.

So in fact it's very smart to have IE's rendering engine sitting as DLL that 3rd party apps can use by simply calling an API.

Take a few minutes to stop trolling against Windows/IE (Mac fanboys are such bad losers) and do some research first.

Almost every file in Windows can run some sort of internal scripting engine. MS embedded ActiveX in Internet Explorer. They embedded vbscript in office files. They used the same html viewer that runs those vbscripts in their mail program, etc.. WMV files can have embedded links that run when you click on them.

LTD said,


Almost every file in Windows can run some sort of internal scripting engine. MS embedded ActiveX in Internet Explorer. They embedded vbscript in office files. They used the same html viewer that runs those vbscripts in their mail program, etc.. WMV files can have embedded links that run when you click on them.


Your completly missing the point. A developer can create a skin with a few local services (say DRM and help files) and then simply have everything ran underneath by calling up the MSHTML.dll API's.

Yes, you can run various other browsers, but the developer has no idea what browsers you have installed, where the rendering engine is located and what API to use.
Additionally, it would mean developers would need to do their online app for Gecko, Trident, Konqueror etc.

It's a lot more sensible to have a single rendering engine in an OS so a developer can target that platform regardless of what browser the end-user normally uses.

What a load of crap. Grow up for crying out loud, every other OS has a browser bundled by default, how else are you meant to obtain any browser? I can only see Microsoft literally shrugging their shoulders on this, on what to do to keep these morons happy. Bundle every browser with Windows? Bundle no browsers? Bundle a "temporary" IE with it that allows you to choose a browser to keep?

All a complete waste of time, money and effort on everyones part.

Exactly. Seems EU is asking nothing more than for Microsoft to waste time and money either way. How this promotes competition is beyond me.

Before you know it though, Windows will be sold in pieces and you'll have to buy and put them together just as you do with a PC.

"Okay, I bought the registry, the kernel, the UI, Windows Media Player 12, and uhh... what else do I need..."

Grow up? Competition laws exist to protect the market place from abuse by monopolies. Microsoft's current practices have been questioned and the EU is investigating. This is not about how OSX / Linux does things as they do not have a monopoly.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Grow up? Competition laws exist to protect the market place from abuse by monopolies. Microsoft's current practices have been questioned and the EU is investigating. This is not about how OSX / Linux does things as they do not have a monopoly.


Neither does MS. It's already been stated that apple competes in the same market as Microsoft. That means, Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. To be a monopoly, you have to be the sole provider of a product in a particular industry or market. Microsoft is not.

Wrong. A monopoly exists "when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it".

ya, ms should put other peoples software on their product.... makes sense.... just like sony needs to stop limiting me from not playing my xbox and nintendo games.... Really, its MS's product, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. You dont like it, You dont buy it.
Desperate for more of that sweet M$$$$$$$$$$ arent we EU.

Krome said,
It would be nice if MS allow other browsers to part of the OS on fresh install.

People would start screaming "Bloat" .

Vezineth said,
People would start screaming "Bloat" .

They'll scream "bloat" regardless. Soon as anything contains anything someone doesn't want, they cry bloat.

The best MS can do, and should do, is just provide links to the alternative browsers like it does for AV software and so on. They have links to the Windows Live apps, so in some other area they should just post alternatives. That should be enough imo.

Opera is dying anyways, their best market which was mobile has just be stolen from them in a flash.

Maybe MS should just buy them out actually, and use their rendering engine which is the only good thing about Opera.

And what happens when 3rd parties software has vulnerabilities and other such issues? If MS is the party distributing software on behalf of these other companies then they take part of the resposibility for any issues relating to the software they are selling as well as likely being required to offer support around these products since they are a part of MS's sold application.

I doubt they can pass the buck back to the other companies if something included in Windows goes pear shaped. It's like when Apple has had hardware issues relating to parts gained from other hardware manufacturers. In the end of the day it's still Apples product and they are responsible for everything in it whether they developed it or not. Same would apply to MS if they include other browsers.

Hah, I'd be laughing my ass off if they had a link to "other great web browsers" with Firefox and Chrome being listed, and not Opera. :P

But yeah, Smigit does bring up some good points.

Certainly it would be a bad move to include other browsers out-of-the-box considering security exploits and such but certainly there should be a location, like the Security Centre, where you can find out about browsers from different companies. With Vista you get a link to Windows Live Messenger - it isn't installed out-of-the-box - so there isn't any reason they couldn't put a link to a browser through Windows Update (or something similar) so pick browsers, with Internet Explorer being one of the options.

The point is that Microsoft has a monopoly and the current bundling gives Microsoft a dramatic advantage. If people had to make an active choice then it's entirely possible they'd give one of the other options a try - even if only 10% of people picked something other than Internet Explorer that would have an incredible effect upon the browser market. I'm not suggesting that Microsoft is evil or anything like that; simply that the current situation is anti-competitive (something the EU has deemed illegal and many other countries have investigated it as well).

And no, it doesn't matter what Apple does regarding OSX / Safari as they don't have a monopoly position and therefore aren't breaking competition laws. However, criticism was raised over the iTunes Music Store, and the EU was looking into the matter, because it DOES have a monopoly and Apple was using it with DRM to tie people into iPods/iTMS - that SHOULD have been investigated but is not irrelevant due to Apple moving towards dropping DRM.

It's really quite obvious when you actually look at the issues. The problem is too many people only look at one aspect and make uninformed accusations / assertions about the entire situation.

dead.cell said,
Hah, I'd be laughing my ass off if they had a link to "other great web browsers" with Firefox and Chrome being listed, and not Opera. :P

But yeah, Smigit does bring up some good points.

IE8 offers alternative links to all of their web products, mainly Google alternatives. IE8 was showing off Google services that I didn't even know existed. o_0

Part of the OS? Of course not, that would mean Microsoft would have to offer product support and warrantees for it. Be responsible for fixing bugs an security issues in it. Microsoft wouldn't want to ship anything it doesn't have the code for and can't review for security / reliability / compliance issues. Hell, the government wouldn't let that happen.

Plus, do you really think any of these browser companies are going to license Microsoft to include their code in the OS? Doubtful, I'd say.

A more practical route is to just get OEMs to bundle their products. Google is already doing this with Chrome.

http://tech2.in.com/india/news/windows-sof...-chrome/52291/0

How exactly would you obtain another browser, say for example firefox, if some form of Internet Explorer was not there to start with on a PC?

Also, does this also mean that OSX which comes bundled with Safari and most distributions of Linux that come bundled with Firefox are subject to the same violation?

GP007 said,
They want to be able to make deals with OEMs to pre-install Opera on Windows.

Is anything stopping them from doing so already but? I wasn't aware OEM's cant offer other browsers already if they wanted, just that IE would also be there.

Chaks said,
May be Opera is desperate that no one is considering it (even Linux) to pre-bundle it :D


Desperate indeed, I personally find it highly amusing that Google's Chrome has exceeded Opera's market share in a matter of months.

Athernar said,
Desperate indeed, I personally find it highly amusing that Google's Chrome has exceeded Opera's market share in a matter of months.

Not to mention Chrome is barely out of alpha stage, and is still missing most fundamental features, such as plugin support. Kinda adds insult to injury, dont'cha think? :-)

GP007 said,
They want to be able to make deals with OEMs to pre-install Opera on Windows.


They can already do that, just like Google does with the OEMs that bundle Chrome now.

MS's job is to ensure people could do **** with an operating system from the get-go without resorting to alternative software. (which would be quite hard to find if it wasn't for IE in the first place). >.> Now do you see Firefox pre-installed on OSX? No, Safari is there all nicely and no one complains. Apple sure is blocking the market from a "genuine choice" because they happen to include a product with their operating system.

Exactly, that's the same thing I also thought. Let us see what happens if somebody requests Apple to bundle Camino instead of Safari!

OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.

LTD said,
OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.


wtf have the web standards to do with this discussion? right, nothing, IE is the defacto standard for companies, relevant to the discussion? no! And according to your logic, IE8 may be included as it follows the standards closely

Also, if having a low market share means that you are allowed things your competition is not allowed to do, than we live in a ****ed up world. Sadly, this is the case

XerXis said,
wtf have the web standards to do with this discussion? right, nothing, IE is the defacto standard for companies, relevant to the discussion? no! And according to your logic, IE8 may be included as it follows the standards closely

Also, if having a low market share means that you are allowed things your competition is not allowed to do, than we live in a ****ed up world. Sadly, this is the case

Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers, and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X. They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition - in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.

LTD said,
Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial

Oh yes, it matters, that's how justice should work.
Microsoft has the right to bundle its own browser the same way Nokia bundles its own, or the Nintendo Wii, or Apple.

Fanboys have convoluted logic.

LTD said,
OS X is not a de facto monopoly in the market, and it has already been determined legally that OS X competes in the same market as Windows. And Safari is based on web standard protocols just like all the other browsers - unlike IE.


Clearly you are a fanboy.........Apple can do no wrong at all to you. Let's see - try and tell me 5 things that Apple is doing wrong??? How about we start off with how their products come with non-self replaceable batteries...oh wait, that prevents damage by customers in case they don't know how to put in a battery properly or does this improve customer satisfaction somehow?

LTD said,
Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers,

But Microsoft did? For a long while, there weren't really better alternatives. Thus, everyone stuck to IE until we realized that the way we browse does matter. I mean, I never thought I'd be browsing the way I would when Firefox came out. Then it gets updated and my browsing behaviors continue to change. Opera users just as well.

IE being baked into the OS I can certainly understand from the "dumb PC user" perspective. Not the greatest of ideas, but even when members ask how to uninstall it, I've seen responses suggesting to leave it there "just in case"... Not being able to uninstall something does not mean it is going to be used. The only thing pushing the use of IE is websites that are built around it which require you to use it.

and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X. They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition - in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Would like some source on this. Intentionally making their programs buggy in OS X? Then could I say that Apple does the same since, despite what Jobs says, their software runs like crap in Windows? On top of that, you say that when Apple sits and bricks the iPhones to prevent users actually doing what they want to with the phone they purchased?

Also, you're talking about a company that strives to allow every last piece of software to run on it. Many of us sit here asking that Microsoft drop some of this legacy support and move on!

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.

Again, just because you're not deleting it doesn't mean it will be used. I have both Opera and IE installed on mine and use neither.

All in all, Safari still comes with OS X. But because Microsoft reigns in the PC market, Microsoft is bad. Or at least that's how I'm guessing it works from your post? Seriously, that just seems silly. Especially when I go to forums all over suggesting people to use other browsers and products than Microsoft's.

It makes no difference, really. MS is a convicted monopolist. Similar allegations against Apple have thus far met with failure. The reasons are available for all to see.

LTD said,
It makes no difference, really. MS is a convicted monopolist. Similar allegations against Apple have thus far met with failure. The reasons are available for all to see.

So the fact that the evidence you presented is irrelevant makes no difference? Amazing.

Mista T said,
Clearly you are a fanboy.........Apple can do no wrong at all to you. Let's see - try and tell me 5 things that Apple is doing wrong??? How about we start off with how their products come with non-self replaceable batteries...oh wait, that prevents damage by customers in case they don't know how to put in a battery properly or does this improve customer satisfaction somehow?


I totally agree with you Mista T. I find it stupid that you have to send in your IPhone to have the battery replaced and who knows who is looking at your data on that phone while they have it.

LTD said,
It makes no difference, really. MS is a convicted monopolist. Similar allegations against Apple have thus far met with failure. The reasons are available for all to see.


Unsophisticated minds continue conjuring up and preaching non-sequitur arguments, wallowing in self-delusion that they are always on the right side.

I bear nothing against Apple or Linux variants, but senseless fanboys full of immature, magical thinking irks all others.

resol612 said,
Unsophisticated minds continue conjuring up and preaching non-sequitur arguments, wallowing in self-delusion that they are always on the right side.

I bear nothing against Apple or Linux variants, but senseless fanboys full of immature, magical thinking irks all others.

No magic here, just facts and law.

But, your ad hominem attacks stand in stark contrast to ones that I never made. Now that we're talking about unsophisticated.

SierraSonic said,
MS's job is to ensure people could do **** with an operating system from the get-go without resorting to alternative software.

No, that's the OEM's job. What you described is exactly why there are antitrust investigations against MS. "Without resorting to alternative software" is the entire problem.

An OS provides a multitasking/multithreading environment with access to devices and peripherals. Applications are what you load onto an OS and actually run & use and interface with. Windows Explorer (the start button & file manager), Calculator, Wordpad, those are applications. The only reason nobody's complaining about them is because it isn't worth it, there are so many freeware solutions at that level.

In the web browser, media player, video & picture editing space, there are tons of competitors, yet MS is bundling their own versions with the OS, instead of letting the OEM put together a suite of software applications and customizing the install for the end user.

Chaks said,
Exactly, that's the same thing I also thought. Let us see what happens if somebody requests Apple to bundle Camino instead of Safari!

No. Apple sells their own PCs, they don't have OEMs put them together. It is their product from start to finish. If MS were to build their own PCs and sell them, then they can put the product together however they want. However, OEMs put together PCs, not Microsoft. It is not Microsoft's machine. They just sell software that they describe as an "OS", but it is not, it is an OS plus an applications suite.

OEMs used to put together PCs and customize the application suite for the end user. Now Windows, an OS + Applications suite, is loaded onto PCs. There is no OS-only version where each and every application loaded can be interchanged and customized. Every Windows install includes certain applications by default that cannot be interchanged, yet are required because MS bundles them with the OS and doesn't allow them to be removed completely, and in the case of Internet Explorer, they insist it is an important system component that is used as a subsystem for other applications. That's fine, but it's still not part of the OS, and they still don't allow it to be completely removed.

This is why there are still antitrust allegations against MS.

LTD said,

There were no standards when IE was first developed, IE *was* the standard. Then a bunch of people got together and decided to make the web more friendly for the masses, except IE was mainly entrenched in the business realm with a massive market share. What do you expect, them to say F*** You to all their business partners and the the proprietary software built upon their platform? Are you really that naive?

It must be easy to claim Apple can do everything better, after Microsoft was there to break the ice for you, how convenient. Can you name one thing original thing Apple has created? The dock? No. The music player? No. A mobile OS? Touch-screen interface? No.

Apple does one thing extremely well, and that is polish off the works of others innovations, and release it as their own. Just like when they bought the iPod click wheel from Synaptics, bought out SoundJam and renamed it iTunes, stole the iPhone interface from the HTC Touch, and way back to when they released the Apple II off the backs of Xerox.

There isn't a single innovation that Apple can claim the rights too. They buy others innovations with a check, and build off the first-time failures of other companies.

Don't thank Steve Jobs for saving Apple, thank Microsoft for injecting cash into your stock to avoid increasing Anti-Trust suits. Steve Jobs is a salesman that chose the wrong crowd, and if he could go back in time, I bet he would trade places with Bill Gates in a heartbeat. I'm sure Jobs is a great guy, and best of luck to his heath, but he is good at spending Microsoft's settlement money on other peoples hard work, and then selling it as an apple product. That's what he does, plain and simple.

Your Apple fanboyism may be as dense as a falling star, but even you can't escape the undeniable truth. Apple exists for only one reason: because it's within the best interests of Microsoft. If anti-trust laws evaporated in a single day, Apple would be dead within the next fiscal year. Microsoft already squashed Apple once(arguably twice), and I'm sure they would be quite efficient at doing it again.

If I were you LTD, I would save my energy and redirect it at bashing Linux. Linux is becoming more streamlined for the consumer with every commercial release, and companies like HP are starting to tickle the idea of designing next generation products around their own in-house linux distributions. Gee, hardware companies that release their own O/S software.. where did I hear that one bef.. oh wait.

What happens when Hardware Vendors own O/S bundles begin to crush Apple's market share? I'm sure Apple's stock will shrink faster than Steve's waistline. I don't think there's enough innovation for Apple to buy themselves out of that scenario.


Kojio said,

That settlement money was there because it was in MS' interests to bring their legal troubles to an end. Apple put them in a legal stranglehold via various allegations and the case was settled. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that those settlement proceeds certainly helped Apple. You're right about that. Except that it no longer matters.

But if this had happened, if that had happened, were it not for this or that, if antitrust laws evaporated, etc. It's all immaterial in light of what is going on right now, in the present. And if my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon. So what.

And I'm a strong supporter of Linux. I won't bash Linux. Linux developers aren't responsible for the galactic amount of lost data over the years thanks to MS' security practices. I would love to see Linux enjoy wider adoption.

Apple exists and flourishes because they not only went after MS legally, thereby extracting concessions from them via a settlement, but because they make products that have an incredible amount of appeal, and because a good chunk of the market is sick of Windows and their lousy track record in terms of security, design, and any number of other things on the minds of people who have dumped the platform.

LTD said,

Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers, and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X. They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition - in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.

Hmm..odd I've uninstalled IE on my Windows Vista machine and it continues along happily with no issues.

LTD said,
It makes no difference, really. MS is a convicted monopolist. Similar allegations against Apple have thus far met with failure. The reasons are available for all to see.

Apple not allowing OSX to be installed on any hardware....and/or not allowing hardware manufacturers/builders to sell systems with OSX installed...hmm...nope no monopoly with Apple.

Nichod said,
Apple not allowing OSX to be installed on any hardware....and/or not allowing hardware manufacturers/builders to sell systems with OSX installed...hmm...nope no monopoly with Apple.


everyone knows apple is guilty of the same things MS is accused off..the big different is money..apple has nothing compared to MS

and really..taking out the only browser from windows will accomplish what..how r they supposed to get a browser..AND..if you ship other browsers with windows..people will expect MS to support them

the EU is stupid..as usual

LTD said,

Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers, and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X. They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition - in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.

And the fact that Apple will not allow any other browser to be installed, sold, etc for the IPHONE isn't an issue?

To me this filing is nothing more than Opera crying over its lack of marketshare.

Nichod said,

And the fact that Apple will not allow any other browser to be installed, sold, etc for the IPHONE isn't an issue?

They are.

Nichod said,
Apple not allowing OSX to be installed on any hardware....and/or not allowing hardware manufacturers/builders to sell systems with OSX installed...hmm...nope no monopoly with Apple.

Apple does not meet any current legal standard of monopoly. Regardless of what you think.

For one, Apple competes in the same market as MS, therefore has no monopoly. Apple is not a unique market unto itself.

LTD said,
Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers,


You must be joking. You think Firefox adoption would be better on Windows if IE wasn't included, but you don't think Firefox for Mac adoption would be better if Safari weren't included there?

You're a joke, LTD.

and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X.


Okay. Are you implying somebody else did?

They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition


Oh, so when Microsoft includes a browser in the OS it must be for evil purposes, but when Apple does the same thing it's their benevolent will that honors you with built-in web browsing capability?

in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.


This is a lie! Microsoft has never, ever, ever deliberately broken compatibility with ANY Windows applications. Quite the contrary, the Windows team has proven time and again that enormous effort is put into maintaining backward compatibility through Windows releases, even if it means bending over backward to support poorly written applications or those that don't follow the documentation or design guidelines.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.


Wait, Netscape? Sun? This is 2009, and you're bringing up the fall of Netscape?. You're saying Microsoft should be punished over and over again for something you claim they did wrong 15 years ago?

Also, what the hell does "propietary" mean in this context? There used to be a Mac version of IE, but Apple killed it when they bundled Safari. IE follows the same web standards as everybody else. IE 5.5 was a leader in adoption of the CSS standard. Yes, IE 6 fell behind on new standards invented after its creation. But you can't put all the blame on Microsoft for that, they were basically forced to stop development of IE by the government to give other browsers a chance to "catch up."

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.


No you can't. If you delete all the webkit libraries, iTunes breaks, as do many other components or applications built on them.

XerXis said,
wtf have the web standards to do with this discussion?

MS was tried and convicted of criminal abuse of their monopoly powers because they used IE to sabotage those very standards to give MS and unfair advantage in the market. If IE adhered to web standards and MS didn't use it to spread malware like ActiveX and Silverlight few people would complain.

How is it that other companies put out honest products and succeed yet MS can't do a damn thing without using it's abusive monopoly to shove things down everyone's throats?

XerXis said,
wtf have the web standards to do with this discussion?

MS was tried and convicted of criminal abuse of their monopoly powers because they used IE to sabotage those very standards to give MS and unfair advantage in the market. If IE adhered to web standards and MS didn't use it to spread malware like ActiveX and Silverlight few people would complain.

How is it that other companies put out honest products and succeed yet MS can't do a damn thing without using it's abusive monopoly to shove things down everyone's throats?

LTD said,


Apple bundled Safari not to disadvantage makers of other Mac web browsers, and has not tweaked the protocols to deliberately make competing programs buggy in OS X. They have not tampered with the ability of other programs to run in OS X that compete with Apple's own offerings nor have they bundled to hurt competition - in both cases Microsoft has though sought to deliberately code Windows to break compatibility of other programs and bundle their apps to encourage users to adopt Microsoft products and discourage them from using anything else.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser.

And if you don't like Safari, you can simply delete it as you would delete any other app in OS X, and the OS would continue to work as it normally would.


What a crock of ****. They break compatibility all the time. My finace has a MacMini running 10.3.9: Guess what.... She can't install the latest version of ANYTHING. She can't install the latest version of Safari, nor firefox, nor opera. Unless she ponies up $150 dollars for a POINT upgrade she's just SOL. I bet you money i can still install Firefox on Windows 95 with at least the latest FF2.x release. Try to get backwards compatibility like that ANYWHERE on the MAC or LINUX market. You WILL NOT SEE IT. That's right. My finace's ****ty little mac mini, something that was developed just to surf the web, send emails, and do home work is No LONGER compatible with two of the three purposes. Webpages are broken and the latest office offering doesn't work on it.

HalcyonX12 said,
No, that's the OEM's job. What you described is exactly why there are antitrust investigations against MS. "Without resorting to alternative software" is the entire problem.

An OS provides a multitasking/multithreading environment with access to devices and peripherals. Applications are what you load onto an OS and actually run & use and interface with. Windows Explorer (the start button & file manager), Calculator, Wordpad, those are applications. The only reason nobody's complaining about them is because it isn't worth it, there are so many freeware solutions at that level.

In the web browser, media player, video & picture editing space, there are tons of competitors, yet MS is bundling their own versions with the OS, instead of letting the OEM put together a suite of software applications and customizing the install for the end user.

This might sound absurd to some people, and especially to the EU. But that's exactly what I don't like about computers coming an OEM. They are preloaded with loads of software I'll never use. And the worst thing is, there is no way of getting the OS in a clean state by just uninstalling these applications from the Add/Remove Software list...

Kojio said,
There were no standards when IE was first developed, IE *was* the standard.

When IE was first developed, and not by Microsoft, Netscape *was* the standard browser. There are links to court documents all over the web that you can find that details the court precedings brought against Microsoft by Netscape. IE was tied to the OS to kill Netscape. It's all in print for anyone to read.

Then a bunch of people got together and decided to make the web more friendly for the masses, except IE was mainly entrenched in the business realm with a massive market share. What do you expect, them to say F*** You to all their business partners and the the proprietary software built upon their platform? Are you really that naive?

It seems that you're the naive one here. The "bunch of people" you refer to was Netscape. Microsoft hardly ever enters a market where they don't fight dirty to keep it. IE was never entrenched in the business segment until Microsoft started tying the browser to the OS. A browser that purposively had non standard working from the browsers at the time. All designed to entrench IE and create an instant an massive user base.

Apple does one thing extremely well, and that is polish off the works of others innovations, and release it as their own. Just like when they bought the iPod click wheel from Synaptics, bought out SoundJam and renamed it iTunes, stole the iPhone interface from the HTC Touch, and way back to when they released the Apple II off the backs of Xerox.

Microsoft does those things as well. Pirated code from Digital Research was used in DOS. IE wasn't developed by Microsoft. DirectX wasn't developed by Microsoft. Alomost every technology Microsoft has was either purchased or gobbled up after a company tried suing them for playing unfair. IE is one prime example of that.

There isn't a single innovation that Apple can claim the rights too. They buy others innovations with a check, and build off the first-time failures of other companies.

Usable personal computer comes to mind. Ya know, ones that had keyboards and monitors and encased in wood. I still have the one that was bought for me.

Before Apple, home computers were home built kits that did little more than flash lights at the user and early models of those were 'programmed' by flipping a series of 8 switches to certain positions over and over. You effectively had to program them in binary. Later machines had punch cards.