Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[Growled Member]

Which law, specifically? What does this law say?

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one that keeps saying over and over they broke the law. You keep twisting everything that's said.

[Lechio]

I support browsers I like, and that's not the topic of the discussion.

But if you're interested in my likes and dislikes, feel free to PM me. I'll hook you up with my cell number too, and we can make a date. :wub:

And one of those browsers you don't like is Opera because of their "whining", as you have stated. Since others are now "whining" too, I've asked you if you would consider removing those from your "worth using" signature too.

I'm flattered by the offer but I must refuse as I'm not homosexual, sorry. :)

[Tech Star]

As much as I like Firefox, Mozilla needs to stfu and Opera too. If they made their own OS would they bundle IE with it? I didn't think so. Microsoft made Windows and it it their RIGHT to install WHATEVER software they want to be bundled with the OS.

[Calum Veteran]

Finally, people will stop having a go at Opera only now! Hopefully...

This story is just getting more ridiculous by the day. Microsoft are not breaking the law. They have legitimately created a product and legitimately sold it. It's the customers who have made Windows so popular and Internet Explorer has become the most popular web browser as a result of that.

If the EU make Apple remove Safari from Mac OS X, then it will be more acceptable because it will be a fair law, but right now, as it stands the law isn't "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system", the law is "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system if you are Microsoft". Hypocrisy and unfairness at their finest!

[BajiRav]

Finally, people will stop having a go at Opera only now! Hopefully...

This story is just getting more ridiculous by the day. Microsoft are not breaking the law. They have legitimately created a product and legitimately sold it. It's the customers who have made Windows so popular and Internet Explorer has become the most popular web browser as a result of that.

If the EU make Apple remove Safari from Mac OS X, then it will be more acceptable because it will be a fair law, but right now, as it stands the law isn't "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system", the law is "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system if you are Microsoft". Hypocrisy and unfairness at their finest!

I think the reason I was ****ed off at Opera was because of their stupid demands/comments after the ballot proposal (which itself is weird to begin with). Hide the blue e logo, Provide updates to Opera through WU (I hope there was not more than this).

I sincerely hope this doesn't spill out of EU (Mozilla/Opera demanding making it worldwide), that would be an unnecessary hassle for me personally.

[dead.cell]

And one of those browsers you don't like is Opera because of their "whining", as you have stated. Since others are now "whining" too, I've asked you if you would consider removing those from your "worth using" signature too.

I'm flattered by the offer but I must refuse as I'm not homosexual, sorry. :)

Um, I like IE8, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari 4. IE and Safari weren't very good at all with their previous versions. I would go on in detail about what I like about each of these browsers, but it's not the topic of the thread, and well... it seems you've turned me down for dinner. :$

This is about making the ballot box better, as it seems Microsoft will be making one after all. I don't see how removing the icons and making the ballot box look dull helps in that manner, nor do I agree with software in general updating through the Windows Updater that was brought up in the last thread.

If you wish to continue in derailing the thread, be my guest. I love rebels. :heart:

[d_ralphie]

But it is a monopoly if I can only get my hardware, O/S from the same place. Isnt monopoly mean that.

This is a monopoly for its own products. That's different. We are talking about a MARKET monopoly here. Microsoft dominates the OS market, not just OSes made by Microsoft.

let me just clarify that this has nothing to do with "double standards"

Of course it does. You are whining about one company doing something, and when confronted with the fact that other companies you promote are doing the same, you suddenly fall silent. Now that Mozilla writes several lengthy articles on the subject, they are suddenly heroes, whereas when Opera is asked questions by journalists they are "whining"?

Never mind the fact that both Microsoft and Google have been throwing antitrust complaints at each other. But I guess it's only bad if Opera does it!

The idea that was tossed around, supposedly by Opera, about software in general updating through Windows Updater just sounded ludicrous.

Opera never "tossed around" that idea. And you know that by now, so why do you keep lying about it?

[petrossa]

Finally, people will stop having a go at Opera only now! Hopefully...

This story is just getting more ridiculous by the day. Microsoft are not breaking the law. They have legitimately created a product and legitimately sold it. It's the customers who have made Windows so popular and Internet Explorer has become the most popular web browser as a result of that.

If the EU make Apple remove Safari from Mac OS X, then it will be more acceptable because it will be a fair law, but right now, as it stands the law isn't "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system", the law is "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system if you are Microsoft". Hypocrisy and unfairness at their finest!

Hey, come on. The law says no such thing at all. The law is there to protect me from companies ripping me off and companies forcing others out of the market by unfair competitive practices.

It's the same law that got Intel by the family jewels.

If it is in this case a browser, or another case a mediaplayer or in the soon to be anti-malware rucus with MSE doesn't matter.

By definition a law can not be hypocrite. As soon as there's a law outlawing the nick Calum you'll be shouting 'hey that's not fair' all the way to prison.

[d_ralphie]

I think the reason I was ****ed off at Opera was because of their stupid demands/comments after the ballot proposal (which itself is weird to begin with). Hide the blue e logo, Provide updates to Opera through WU (I hope there was not more than this).

Opera never even suggested that they be made part of Windows Update. They were referring to WEBSITES. At least pay attention.

Also, regarding the logo, Mozilla had similar complaints. And all Opera did was to point out that the blue E has a huge advantage over the other ones, so that is something that should be taken into consideration.

And finally, OPERA CAN NOT DEMAND ANYTHING.

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one that keeps saying over and over they broke the law.

So you don't know what the law actually is, and you stil think it's "dumb"?

"That may well be the law but it's a dumb law, in my opinion."

How about, you know, educating yourself before posting knee-jerk comments? There is clearly much more to this case than you know, so why jump to defend Microsoft when you don't even know what actually happened?

[Calum Veteran]

I think the reason I was ****ed off at Opera was because of their stupid demands/comments after the ballot proposal (which itself is weird to begin with). Hide the blue e logo, Provide updates to Opera through WU (I hope there was not more than this).

That's fair point :)

Hey, come on. The law says no such thing at all. The law is there to protect me from companies ripping me off and companies forcing others out of the market by unfair competitive practices.

It's the same law that got Intel by the family jewels.

If it is in this case a browser, or another case a mediaplayer or in the soon to be anti-malware rucus with MSE doesn't matter.

By definition a law can not be hypocrite. As soon as there's a law outlawing the nick Calum you'll be shouting 'hey that's not fair' all the way to prison.

Of course the law doesn't state that, but that's the way it seems. They are targetting Microsoft for adding a web browser to their operating system but they aren't charging Apple for the same, even though Apple do the same.

What unfair competitive practices have Microsoft carried out then? All they have done is sold their operating system. Apple also sell their operating system (for current Mac users using older versions, as well as on new Mac computers), so if the law is against companies selling their operating system, like you seem to suggest, the law is still unfair.

A law can be hypocritical if it states "Microsoft can't place a web browser in their operating system but Apple can". Now, that's obviously not the official law, but that's definitely the jist of it. I have yet to see solid proof that Microsoft have carried out unfair competitive practices; I have only seen accusations.

[dead.cell]

Of course it does. You are whining about one company doing something, and when confronted with the fact that other companies you promote are doing the same, you suddenly fall silent. Now that Mozilla writes several lengthy articles on the subject, they are suddenly heroes, whereas when Opera is asked questions by journalists they are "whining"?

Never mind the fact that both Microsoft and Google have been throwing antitrust complaints at each other. But I guess it's only bad if Opera does it!

Opera never "tossed around" that idea. And you know that by now, so why do you keep lying about it?

Nope, I said they were decent ideas. They help make the installs from the ballot screen easier, and less annoying. As I've stated, I don't agree with the ballot box at all, and found Opera's bitching about the damn IE logo to be just pathetic. Still, it seems Microsoft is going to be producing one anyway, so why not have it done right?

Also, I said supposedly. I was unsure, and you are not any more of a reliable source than the other guy was. Just because you posted "NUH UH" in a size 6 font, doesn't mean I should listen to you instead. Still though, the idea was horrible, Opera or not.

[Ringer]

so where does it stop, should Microsoft not offer anything inside there OS and you are forced to download everything from Media Players to notepad to solitaire just because there is an alternative to their software. Its there software package let them put in what they want. if people want an alternative they will go and find it. That's why people use products like Winamp, Firefox, Opera, notepad ++, etc...

[d_ralphie]

@dead.cell: Opera didn't "bitch about the logo". They calmly explained that the blue E would have a huge advantage. Do you deny this? Or are you just here to whine pointlessly about it because it was Opera pointing it out? You are clearly desperate to smear Opera, and completely ignore all the stuff Mozilla wrote about this.

so does apple have this same problem in EU too?

Apple is not a monopoly.

Microsoft have not lodged any antitrust case against Google's Search business

Ads ARE the search business. We are the product. Google is selling our eyeballs to advertisers.

I love the fact that you can be penalized for making a product that is the "majority".

Microsoft isn't being penalized for that. They are being penalized for breaking the law.

Saying that Microsoft is being penalized for making a product used by most people is like saying that the athlete who won the gold medal because of illegal performance-enhancing drugs is losing his gold medal for running faster than everyone else.

[ichi]

Windows is not the only general purpose OS available.

And? The point was Mac doesn't hold enough market share in the computer market to be regarded as a monopoly from a legal POV.

MS, on the other hand, does on the OS market.

Every company has a "monopoly" on their own brand, over their own line of products, but that's not what monopolies are about.

[d_ralphie]

@Ringer: How about reading the thread before commenting? Why repeat the same old Microsoft talking points that have already been refuted in this thread?

So where does it stop? The command prompt? The HAL? or the NT kernel?

That depends on whether Microsoft broke the law with those things. Was there a command prompt market which Microsoft illegally destroyed by leveraging their monopoly? There very well may have been, but no one reported it to the authorities. If no one reports it, it might not be picked up on. But you will have to show that an actual violation of the law has taken place.

It's really simple. Perhaps you should educate yourself before repeating these tired old Microsoft talking points. They are completely bogus, and are nothing but a red herring.

Microsoft are not breaking the law. They have legitimately created a product and legitimately sold it. It's the customers who have made Windows so popular and Internet Explorer has become the most popular web browser as a result of that.

This is false. They are breaking the law. They are abusing their dominant position in the OS market to destroy competition in the browser market.

If the EU make Apple remove Safari from Mac OS X, then it will be more acceptable because it will be a fair law

No, the law IS fair. You just don't have a whole lot of knowledge of the law, it seems. The law is this way because dominant companies like Microsoft have a HUGE influence over the market. To ensure that the free market continues to work, it is protected by laws that restrict dominant companies so that they can't undermine competition.

as it stands the law isn't "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system", the law is "You are not able to include a web browser in your operating system if you are Microsoft". Hypocrisy and unfairness at their finest!

This is incorrect once again. The law is that you are not allowed to abuse your dominance in one market to gain dominance in a different market. The fact that you think this only applies to Microsoft speaks volumes about how little you actually know about the law, which is sad because it only reinforces the misconception that "innocent Microsoft is just being picked on".

[Calum Veteran]

Apple is not a monopoly.

Neither is Microsoft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly[/url]']In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος alone or single + polein / πωλειν, to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

This obviously refers to a product in general; in this case an operating system. If Microsoft took their operating system away, companies and home users could still use Linux or any other operating system. They may not be able to do everything they desire, but they'll certainly have access to an operating system.

[dead.cell]

@dead.cell: Opera didn't "bitch about the logo". They calmly explained that the blue E would have a huge advantage. Do you deny this? Or are you just here to whine pointlessly about it because it was Opera pointing it out? You are clearly desperate to smear Opera, and completely ignore all the stuff Mozilla wrote about this.

Yeah, what can I say? I have a dislike for inferior software. :rolleyes:

[O.G]

Microsoft are not breaking the law. They have legitimately created a product and legitimately sold it. It's the customers who have made Windows so popular and Internet Explorer has become the most popular web browser as a result of that.

Wrong. Their product is legitimate sure. But it uses one product, the OS, to promote another product in a different market, the browser. The EU decided that the way Microsoft have been doing this is against EU competition law. Therefor, they have broken the law. It really is as simple as that.

If the EU make Apple remove Safari from Mac OS X.......

As was stated, in large bold type, on the very first page of this thread, Apple does not have a monopoly in the OS market. They are irrelevant in this argument because they are not obliged to operate under the same terms as Microsoft. This is a protection mechanism to allow small operators the ability to exist in markets dominated by one or two players, like Microsoft. In other words, and pure speculation, if it were not for Microsoft's continued ignorance of the law, and had they played fair, Apple (or whatever flavour of Linux) would be a direct competitor, with a market share worth bothering about, and they would be forced to play by the same rules as Microsoft.

[petrossa]

That's fair point :)

Of course the law doesn't state that, but that's the way it seems. They are targetting Microsoft for adding a web browser to their operating system but they aren't charging Apple for the same, even though Apple do the same.

What unfair competitive practices have Microsoft carried out then? All they have done is sold their operating system. Apple also sell their operating system (for current Mac users using older versions, as well as on new Mac computers), so if the law is against companies selling their operating system, like you seem to suggest, the law is still unfair.

A law can be hypocritical if it states "Microsoft can't place a web browser in their operating system but Apple can". Now, that's obviously not the official law, but that's definitely the jist of it. I have yet to see solid proof that Microsoft have carried out unfair competitive practices; I have only seen accusations.

You confuse the law with the EU committee. This committee is the executive branch, they say so after receiving complaints.

As soon as someone deposits a plaint against Apple it will be looked into.

[Ringer]

@d_ralphie: Can you please post a link to the actual law that Microsoft has broken so i can better understand then. also i have read the entire thread before posting.

[d_ralphie]

@dead.cell: Thanks for admitting your double standards and trolling.

@Ringer: You are just going to reject it out of hand because you don't understand it, but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82_of...opean_Community

That's fair point :)

Actually, it isn't. It's a gross misrepresentation of what Opera said. Basically a blatant lie.

Of course the law doesn't state that, but that's the way it seems. They are targetting Microsoft for adding a web browser to their operating system but they aren't charging Apple for the same, even though Apple do the same.

No, they are NOT targeting Microsoft for that. They are targeting Microsoft for abusing their dominant position in one market to in order to gain dominance in a different market.

What unfair competitive practices have Microsoft carried out then?

Bullying OEMs, consciously making IE incompatible with standards and pushing proprietary technologies like ActiveX to cause lock-in, undermining open standards and the processes behind open standards (recently CSS and ECMAScript)

A law can be hypocritical if it states "Microsoft can't place a web browser in their operating system but Apple can". Now, that's obviously not the official law, but that's definitely the jist of it.

No it isn't.

I have yet to see solid proof that Microsoft have carried out unfair competitive practices; I have only seen accusations.

Educate yourself about Microsoft's abusive history.

Neither is Microsoft.

It most certainly is. Windows holds, what, 90+% of the OS market? That is a monopoly for sure. In fact, anything above something like 40-60% can be considered to be a monopoly by the legal definition. A monopoly by the legal definition does not need a 100% market share.

[Syanide]

@Ringer: How about reading the thread before commenting? Why repeat the same old Microsoft talking points that have already been refuted in this thread?

That depends on whether Microsoft broke the law with those things. Was there a command prompt market which Microsoft illegally destroyed by leveraging their monopoly? There very well may have been, but no one reported it to the authorities. If no one reports it, it might not be picked up on. But you will have to show that an actual violation of the law has taken place.

It's really simple. Perhaps you should educate yourself before repeating these tired old Microsoft talking points. They are completely bogus, and are nothing but a red herring.

This is false. They are breaking the law. They are abusing their dominant position in the OS market to destroy competition in the browser market.

No, the law IS fair. You just don't have a whole lot of knowledge of the law, it seems. The law is this way because dominant companies like Microsoft have a HUGE influence over the market. To ensure that the free market continues to work, it is protected by laws that restrict dominant companies so that they can't undermine competition.

This is incorrect once again. The law is that you are not allowed to abuse your dominance in one market to gain dominance in a different market. The fact that you think this only applies to Microsoft speaks volumes about how little you actually know about the law, which is sad because it only reinforces the misconception that "innocent Microsoft is just being picked on".

This.

Neither is Microsoft.

This obviously refers to a product in general; in this case an operating system. If Microsoft took their operating system away, companies and home users could still use Linux or any other operating system. They may not be able to do everything they desire, but they'll certainly have access to an operating system.

Read ^.

[dead.cell]

@dead.cell: Thanks for admitting your double standards and trolling.

Oh, that's rich. You want me to believe you when you post your comments in size 6 font, yet you seem unable to catch sarcasm.

Tell me how Mozilla's ideas didn't work in favor of the user? If Microsoft creates a ballot box, how can suggesting having an easier and less annoying install process be considered bad exactly? Also, okay, let's get this straight then: Opera merely pointed out that the IE logo has the advantage. Great! So you're saying they shared nothing valuable to the project at all, am I getting that right? I mean, aside from the ballot box itself, but hey, if it were up to me, there'd be no ballot box.

I follow a simple idea and that's: if you're going to do something, do it right. I still feel Microsoft shouldn't have to do this, but if they're going to, as I said: let's do it right.

[Calum Veteran]

It most certainly is. Windows holds, what, 90+% of the OS market? That is a monopoly for sure. In fact, anything above something like 40-60% can be considered to be a monopoly by the legal definition. A monopoly by the legal definition does not need a 100% market share.

Please provide me with proof of this.

I have given you my proof as to why Microsoft is not a monopoly so I would like to see your proof please.

So you guys are telling me the EU are basically saying a company can include a web browser in their operating unless they're successful? How is that fair? It's the customers who make the product successful, not necessarily the company. All Microsoft have done is sold their operating system with a web browser and Apple have done the same. I see no nasty tactics in this or obvious law breakage. Microsoft have done nothing wrong - they are just being targetted because they are successful (have a large share of the market). Companies who have done exactly the same as Microsoft are allowed to carry on doing so because they aren't as successful? That's ridiculously unfair and I don't see how some of you can be so immoral!

[Growled Member]

How about, you know, educating yourself before posting knee-jerk comments? There is clearly much more to this case than you know, so why jump to defend Microsoft when you don't even know what actually happened?

You didn't answer the question. Not that I expected you too. :D

I do know what the case is about. I have read extensively on it, though I am nowhere close to an expert. I just wanted to see what kind of answer you would give. You failed. Good day. :)