Google will soon seek European Commission's permission to submit arguments in the antitrust case against Microsoft, the company said in a post on its web site. Google will be applying to intervene as a third party in the EU's case involving Microsoft's IE browser. As an intervener Google will provide background information, legal theories and proposed remedies to the EU in the case against MicrosoftBelow are the reasons that Google put forth to join the anti-trust case:
"Google believes that browser market is still largely uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users. IE is tied to Microsoft's dominant Windows OS, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers. In mobile market, Microsoft cannot tie IE to a dominant OS and its browser therefore has a much lower usage. Google hopes its perspective in launching Chrome will be useful as the EU evaluates remedies to improve the user experience and offer consumers real choices"
Mozilla joined the case earlier this month to submit arguments in the case. Microsoft was accused of violating antitrust law by bundling its Windows Media player with Windows and using illegal tactics against RealNetworks real player in 2007. Microsoft has been fined more than $2 billion for its violations and for failing to carry out remedies imposed by the Commission in the past.
Its Microsoft's OS, they can bundle what they like.
Get rid of Safari off OS X, the same argument can be applied there!!!
In other news, "Microsoft sued by the EU for including a calculator in their latest OS, Windows 7"
And saying you can run everything without Safari on OSX is half-truths in this point. How will you go online? Do they install firefox or something for you? If not, then you can't get on the internet right?
It does. Didn't Apple tell everyone that Mac is not PC?
Microsoft may have PC operating system monopoly, but Apple has MAC operating system monopoly.
So here's the issue: those people use IE by default. Most users either don't know about other browsers or don't care to go through the effort of changing browsers. That means that Internet Explorer, by default and regardless of how good other browsers try to make themselves out to be, will be used and will be the majority's browser. This is an unfair advantage, because it's being used by default and has a load of market share as a result. How else can you explain why Internet Explorer 5 and 6 were used in such huge numbers despite being technologically far behind the competition?
This also creates a problem. If Internet Explorer has such a huge market share and they have that market share by default, rather than because they're really striving to be the best, then their incentive to improve is virtually zero. IE didn't conform to web standards, and it didn't hurt them (until relatively recently, with the FireFox "revolution"). Instead, web standards began to conform to IE. That even further hurt competing browsers, because suddenly users were complaining that pages only looked right in Internet Explorer, yet the other browsers had no idea what Internet Explorer's own internal standards were. (And Microsoft could have changed them at any time.) It's dangerous to give one competing company control of where the proverbial finish line is placed, don't you agree?
What's the solution? It isn't to ship an operating system that lacks a browser, because that's practically essential these days. Offering many browser choices and/or prompting the user for which browser they prefer at start-up would probably be seen as annoying to many people, at first, and Microsoft likely would suffer some backlash as a result. It may not seem fair to Microsoft, but the entire situation was unfair to begin with and it has affected us all. Anyone who can't remember what the internet was like before FireFox became big stuff probably won't know what I'm talking about, but you simply could not use another web browser without having to load Internet Explorer for practically every other website. That's not only bad for other browser companies, that's bad for the end users.
While I can sympathize with Microsoft, the EU has the right idea. Microsoft is an operating system company, but they made the choice to enter the web browser market as well. They're likely well aware that when you reach their size and gain widespread recognition that you gain a lot of power, influence, and control. Our society values the concept of fairness, particularly on the front of giving others a chance. This means that Microsoft needs to be extremely careful about what it does, because even a bit of negligence like IE 5 or 6 can have huge effects and get them in trouble as a result.
It makes no sense to cripple a market leader in the name of fairness. If competition cannot be healthy with all participants following the same guidelines, then the problem is the guidelines, not the competitors.
Just like laws must be applied equally to all members of society regardless of their level of influence or wealth, laws must be applied equally to businesses regardless of marketshare. Harsher requirements placed on market leaders do not foster competition--they control it.
And controlled competition is not competition.
And saying you can run everything without Safari on OSX is half-truths in this point. How will you go online? Do they install firefox or something for you? If not, then you can't get on the internet right?
Strange i don't see the option to uninstall IE with my copy of Vista ...
The main problem about IE is mostly that it doesn't support all formats and standard. So it play a big role in what the net is and will become. MS improved that a lot with IE7 and even more with IE8 but IE6 was a shame to MS name with imcomplete SVG and PNG support and non standard CSS support. Where PNG would be today had IE6 supported it ? It's by far better than gif.
Last edited by LaP on 27 Feb 2009 - 15:05
Personally I think this whole anti trust suit against MS for including things in thier OS is BS. I happen to agree with the previous poster, its MS's OS they can include whatever they want FOR FREE!!! Now if they were the only OS available and they FORCED YOU TO PAY for thier browser and designed the OS in such a way so you could not use any other browser, then I could see a case for a lawsuit. As it stands they are giving you additional functionality for free, I dont see the problem.
Mark. My. Words.
Does the EU expect Coke to include a six pack of Pepsi in their cases? you know- to level the playing field?
You can still have access to the Internet without a web browser installed, you just can't visit any websites.
With this in mind, an in-built 'browser downloader', similar to Windows Update, would be an ideal situation.
With this in mind, an in-built 'browser downloader', similar to Windows Update, would be an ideal situation.
Why do you say you can't visit websites?
There is nothing to stop you visiting websites. The only thing that won't happen is that the HTML won't be rendered so you'd see it in plaintext.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/24/g...t#comment743874
You are free to reply to it is you have some arguments.
its that simple - make a multiple choice of browsers at the install part
So heres the scoop: these are businesses, if you want to compete in the browser arena then DO BUSINESS! Go make a deal with whatever OEM you want, sign a contract, agree to pay, and boom your in. Don't whine that things are unfair because you didn't make a real effort to compete. "Oh but i have a browser thats free to download but not everyone is using it (cry), what do I do?" If you plan on making money off this thing in any way shape or form, learn how to make deals, STOP EXPECTING HAND OUTS!
/end rant
(expect typo's)
So heres the scoop: these are businesses, if you want to compete in the browser arena then DO BUSINESS! Go make a deal with whatever OEM you want, sign a contract, agree to pay, and boom your in. Don't whine that things are unfair because you didn't make a real effort to compete. "Oh but i have a browser thats free to download but not everyone is using it (cry), what do I do?" If you plan on making money off this thing in any way shape or form, learn how to make deals, STOP EXPECTING HAND OUTS!
/end rant
(expect typo's)
Exactly, whats the complaint here?
Oh no were loosing money becuase people wont download our free browser because someone has included a free browser in thier OS?
Makes no sense to me, show me how what MS is doing is financially damaging any of these companies with thier FREE browsers.
Unless thats the point, they only give them away for free because people wont pay for something they already have for free. Make MS stop including IE and now you can charge for your browser.
"Google joins the series of whiners that want their browser in the (Microsoft) box as they were not able to break away enough market share (whatever that might be) and W7 is just an excellent opportunity"
Yawn...
If Google thought it was uncompetitive.... they really should have the resources being a huge company to realise not to waste their time developing chrome as a product.
Sorry Google not every product you launch does into super stardom instantly. Firefox is probably Googles biggest rival not IE.
On the other hand, first WMP, now IE... What's next? Paint's concurrention with Paint.net or Gimp? calc.exe? Maybe even some 3rd party shell that complains that explorer.exe is hard-coded into the OS...
Believe me, this will never end (Well, it will as soon as Windows loses its market share).
Something like this maybe?
Last edited by RealFduch on 25 Feb 2009 - 05:51
Of course if they do that and its selected by default comapnies still complain its anti-competitive, if they dont auto tick it, people will accidentially not install it (novices) who do want it.
Trying to make a company advertise its rivals is not a sensible requirement.
So you think they should include "Super Internet Browser 2009 plus Deluxe with absolute no spyware (I swear!) and a FREE error scan for your PC"? Because if they don't, that's really anticonpetitive advantage for all those Mozilla, Appl and other big corporations.
If people dont like it then dont buy it.
They probably pay more in fines than the revenue they make in EU.
A possible (and humorous) idea would be to give the EC members a version of Windows stuffed full with every web browser made on planet Earth since time immemorial (like Netscape and yes, Safari on Windows). Give them (the ones who accepted this case) a nice taste of their own medicine.
Beside do you think that America ( North and South ), Africa and certain Asian countries , oh and ofc Australia would make it for losing the European income
If you have a company and you do that , then believe me its better to close it down due to the lose of revenue
I also think that they should just modify that special N version and have it not include a browser at all. That way the EU can not say that MS is bundling its IE.
No media player, no web browser. It's not like anyone buys it as is, so no harm done.
Since the Pocket Internet Explorer in Windows Mobile is so bad, it led to the development of such great browsers, like Skyfire, which easily overpasses the iPhone's browser.
Same thing would apply in Windows OS's. We know that Internet Explorer isn't the best, but isn't that why there's companies like Firefox and Google? They should be greateful that Microsoft doesn't develop a superior browser and put them out of business.
Firefox is basically asking for Microsoft to destroy their company by creating a new an innovative browser.
Firefox is just trying to kill the reason why they exist. Just doesn't make sense. And hey, sue Apple if you want to, they actually deserve it, bundling their Safari browser with iTunes? Their not even realted programs. Lets sue Apple!!!
A kernel level scanner that updates itself with the hashes of FF/Opera/Chrome/Safari from the MS Hitlist and all its variants in order to prevent them running on its own operating system...
Now that would be anti competitive...
MS bundling IE is like Apple bundling Safari... If one gets hit the other should.. but its utter BS
I wish Neowin could join the crusade against the EU [< snipped > - CalumJR]
Last edited by CalumJR on 25 Feb 2009 - 04:21
Strongly agree with that.
Companies like Google and Opera are nuts, what they do just something like:"if I can't beat it, sue it". Come on, if your product is great, people will choose yours, and Mozilla Firefox somehow proved that already.
See, I propose my own lawsuit. Google is violating anti trust laws by using Google as a homepage for their browser. Instead, whenever you open the browser over 9000 tabs will pop up and you get to chose your favorite web page instead. Great idea ehh? No. Bad idea, and so if bundling 7 different browsers, media players, other tools with Windows.
Maybe it's time to start using Yahoo...
It's amazing how much attention the world wide web gets. With FTP easier on dedicated clients, and gopher dead, the web is essentially nothing more than one protocol now. One protocol, one aspect of a global network, yet the software used to access this one archaic technology (which has seen little more than new formatting options over the last 15 years) is so fought over and argued about that legal battles are international.
Frankly, I'm bored to tears with the web. Competition for innovation? How grandiose for a glorified document viewer. The face of business! Blah. Information and commerce. New ways to listen/read/watch something or make/spend money. Who gives a bloody fark how many browser companies there are or which one is dominating? The future of the internet will not be decided by web browsers.
[< snipped > - CalumJR] [Personal attacks on an individual or a company are not tolerated here. This comment was fine the way it was and added to the discussion effectively without this. Thank you.]
Last edited by CalumJR on 25 Feb 2009 - 04:25
I have to add this. Real Player didn't fail because of Microsoft but because it ****ing sucks as a product. CASE CLOSED.
[img]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3112/sad-wind.2/0_296fa_7e8c82d5_orig[/img]
P.S. why didn't the first url become link?
Last edited by RealFduch on 25 Feb 2009 - 05:52
Imagine how many windows installs happen A DAY. Imagine all of them downloading, instead of a built-in pre-installed browser, a 20meg EXTRA "update" to Firefox... Multiply that by the thousands of installs a second over the life of an OS? probbly pushing a million dollars.
all because Mozilla / Opera / Google / Apple have only pushed IE's market share down 40% in the past few years...
...........Go ahead, we're waiting......
Ahh right, you have NO clue. None.
If you want to reply, at least have a grasp of what you're talking about. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
Last edited by Spitfire_x86 on 25 Feb 2009 - 09:17
sarcasm with no basis =/
Let me prove my point:
Try to uninstall IE on windows, and your OS won't work like it should. The point of the suit is that IE is wired into windows and you can't get rid of it. Surely you can install another browser, but IE can't be uninstalled without having problems elsewhere. That makes it unfair competition, because IE isn't necessarily better than any other browser, you can have the best browser in the world and it still won't be able to convince people to use it since your OS won't work properly when you want to use it fully.
MS could bundle anything free with their OS, I don't mind, but if you can't use an alternative at a 100%, it's not fair.
Note: this is based on windows XP, I don't know if this is still the case on Vista, since it's a heaping pile of ****.
---snipped---
I don't know if this is still the case on Vista, since it's a heaping pile of ****.
LOL troll
Kick him with a stick.
IE is nothing more than a Web Browser in the Vista7 era, But even if it wasn't - Why do you care if its installed? Do you care about every random DLL and EXE that comes with Windows? I'd think not.
You can take any other web browser and have it completely replace IE in every functionality. IE does not interfer with any 3rd party browser, and vice versa.
Why do I want to uninstall IE anyway? Because I'd like to keep my system clean, and if I have Firefox, I don't need another browser loaded in my background processes.
And as for my intent: I don't have to use all MS's OS to have a decent image of what MS policies are.
-_-
don't get me wrong, I love other browsers, but if some company wants them to be popular, then advertise it.
-_-
don't get me wrong, I love other browsers, but if some company wants them to be popular, then advertise it.
EXACTLY. Thats what I say. When was the last time you ever saw a google, firefox, or opera commercial? hell, I dont think I've ever even seen an online add. Everything about these browsers are just word of mouth basically. They should be forced to spend a couple hundred million like microsoft in advertising, then when it totally fails, they may have a viable claim.
Last edited by shakey on 25 Feb 2009 - 14:37
This drew the effing line. Like it or not, I'm using Yahoo.
Idiots, I tell you.
This drew the effing line. Like it or not, I'm using Yahoo.
Idiots, I tell you.
Then people can start using Linux, the world would be a better place, I tell you.
But now it doesnt make sense. Most browsers are the same these days. IE is still the worst of them all, but what can you do. All OSs come with a browser and windows shouldn't be any different. Ironically enough google is in a position to shove chrome down everybody's throats. Just put links to chrome all over the place in every google page (blogger, youtube, gmail, google search). They're kind of doing it already. I bet chrome suprassed opera in market share just because of that. What now? Opera suing google for abusing market position?
Somehow microsoft bundling IE, chrome, opera, safari and firefox doesnt sound like a bad idea.
What about Super Internet Browser 2009 plus Deluxe with absolute no spyware (I swear!) and a FREE error scan for your PC?
Answer!
Also, should Safari ever make it in there, they better cut the fat off it. By that, I mean no other dumb options aside from the browser itself to install.
So, I say MS should pre-empt the whole issue and save a stack of money on lawyers. Agree to update the N version with no Internet Explorer as well. That solution suited the EU morons fine last time, and will this time too. Then they can just carry on with Windows 7 as they wish as they've made a choice available. That no one will BUY the N version is irrelevant.
Under no circumstances should they agree to bundle other makers browsers, as that hurts their own business.
If Microsoft was forcing all Windows users to use IE and blocking the installation of third party browsers then perhaps there would be a case, but the fact is that people can choose to use a different browser at any time. Nothing is stopping them.
At the very most Microsoft should just include links to download Opera, Firefox, Chrome. Whoop-dee-doo. But nobody should want to buy an OS without a browser installed, and it's *pointless* packaging Windows with third party browsers which are going to be out of date before the user ever gets to install their OS and which can't receieve updates via Windows Update. The EU needs to get a clue!
And they also use their monopoly to spread their browser...
All theyr sites contain chrome links and they publish chrome ads on each page that is talking about another browser...
Face it... google turned into an evil shareholder company...
Apple for example...
Or why are countrys using things made in their country? Why not get all things from other countrys... Thats anti competitive...
Read!
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/24/g...t#comment743756
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/24/g...t#comment743756
MS actually just need to let you un-install IE like you can un-install any other app. Simple is not it ?
That's because Pocket Internet Explorer is utter rubbish compared to its competitors. You either expect it to make a total mess of modern web pages or use something else very quickly.
The normal Internet Explorer actually does well enough, so people use it.
In other words, Google is not only a complete hypocrite but completely blind. Most people can think of several major browsers off the top of their head. Let's say, Internet Explorer, Safari, FireFox, Opera, Chrome. Now, some of those come pre-installed in an operating system and some don't. But the second most popular one according to market share doesn't come pre-installed on ANY computer.
If FireFox can become the #2 browser without being pre-installed then not only is there healthy competition in the browser market (and good visibility of options besides the pre-installed browser default) but lots of room for innovation as well.
It's pretty sad how stupid Google thinks people are.
In other words, Google is not only a complete hypocrite but completely blind. Most people can think of several major browsers off the top of their head. Let's say, Internet Explorer, Safari, FireFox, Opera, Chrome. Now, some of those come pre-installed in an operating system and some don't. But the second most popular one according to market share doesn't come pre-installed on ANY computer.
If FireFox can become the #2 browser without being pre-installed then not only is there healthy competition in the browser market (and good visibility of options besides the pre-installed browser default) but lots of room for innovation as well.
It's pretty sad how stupid Google thinks people are.
If a computer comes pre-installed with a Linux distribution, they generally include Firefox (same applies to Solaris or any of the BSDs). Yet NO Linux distribution gets whacked for failure to include Chrome (or even Opera). This smacks of economic warfare against the United States (Microsoft IS a US-based company); what's the REAL reason the EU is ticked? (Could it be that the United States refuses to repeal the Wire Act's clause prohibiting Internet gambling?)
What can be derived given the above restrictions (and assumption that the users want to have some browser installed)? There should be some program that gives the user ability to download and install ANY browser (not from some Microsoft's list).
This program can be as simple as a form with URL text box and a button you press to download and install your browser. This approach has some problems:
I ask you: can you really remember this link and type it without errors?
mozilla.sakura.ad.jp/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/ru/Firefox%20Setup%203.0.6.exe
So I think I showed pretty clearly that a simple "wget-like" program is not enough. Users really need a full-fledged browser to choose and download the browaser they want. I think that the most symmetrical (and fair) situation is if this browser is Windows' native Internet Explorer.
despicable
dirty tricks, will understand why everyone wants to put the boot in. The fact that Microsoft is rapidly becoming an irrelevance is by-the-by. Vista, and undoubtedly Windows 7 are the latest in Microsoft's self inflicted wounds. And I'm a stock MSFT holder!
Some know-all having no clue posting random rants right under the comment above... looks really silly.
Sorry.
If he read the comments he'd realize that it's the minority, not "everyone", who "wants to put the boot in"
So, WHO is the ignorant one here???
Issues like this really get to me, and before anyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts calling me a Microsoft fanboy I am not and I do my share of criticizing the company when needed, and puts me off for trying other company's products. These companies really sound like cry babies, and turn to the EU when they can't be profitable or make a stance in the market. My advice to these other companies: Build a product that works, spend more money in marketing, talk to OEMs and see if you can get your browser included during the build of systems. That list could go on and on, but would it make a difference? No, because if you turn to the EU you'll get your way because they absolutely LOVE fining a company in which if it didn't exist the Internet wouldn't be what it is today.
This said MS should promote 3rd party products made for Windows as much as MS promotes 3rd party product made for the 360.
There definately should be a way to un-install IE from Windows and anyone saying the opposite definately needs a reality check.
I don't understand people who shed a tear for MS. MS gets what it deserve. Live by the sword die by the sword. MS is a big corporation that played extremely border line for many years. MS improved lately but the
wounds are still there. Like every big corporation MS will do everything they can to make money and this is what Google do lately.
The way some people have double standard here (like C_Guy) really put a big :| on my face.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.