Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[mad_onion]

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!

It might not be a monopoly but it does have a dominant position and that's all competition authorities are concerned about.

[d_ralphie]

Tell me how Mozilla's ideas didn't work in favor of the user?

I never claimed that they didn't. I'm not the one automatically rejecting all feedback just because it's from a specific company or organization. You, on the other hand, grossly misrepresent Opera's statements.

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?

This is just one of the issues Opera raised. Once again you are misrepresenting their statements. Mozilla, too, raised several issues, both back when the ballot was first proposed, and recently. They raised issues, like Opera, and did not offer any solutions. Both Opera and Mozilla pointed out problems that might need to be resolved.

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

I can't believe that you are really asking someone to provide you with "proof" of basic competition law. Your Wikipedia was not proof, just a misrepresentation of the facts. Here's an article about European Competition Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Comm...ce_and_monopoly

As you can see, you can be a "monopoly by law" with a market share of a mere 40%.

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?

Stop misrepresenting people's arguments. It has got nothing to do with being successful. A runner who takes illegal drugs in order to win might be "successful", but that is not why his gold medal is taken away. It's being taken away because he violated the rules he had to agree with in order to join the competition in the first place.

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).

I have already responded to this. Read my other posts in this thread. Why do you keep repeating claims that have already been addressed?

[BajiRav]

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.

So they can bundle as long as no one complains? I mean they ship Windows 7 with a calculator today and tomorrow someone complains to EU and Microsoft is suddenly "abusing their monopoly"? Isn't that your stance? Notice how stupid that sounds? Microsoft talking points? I am not paid by Microsoft for anything - unlike you who seems to be on Opera's payroll.

p.s. There is a market for calculator, Windows Explorer, CD burning software, Text/document editors etc. None of them complained but are instead competing (and succeeding) on their merit. Including Mozilla who has an excellent browser in Firefox (can't say the same about Opera although I used to be an Opera user back in the day) but for some weird reason Mozilla has taken this sad stance.

[d_ralphie]

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

That's the point. You rage against a "dumb law", but when asked about specifics you admit that you haven't a clue about said law. So why are you making these statements in the first place?

I just wanted to see what kind of answer you would give.

Um, in case you didn't notice, you were the one making the claim, and I was the one asking questions. Pretending that this was all just a setup to "trick" me just makes you look desperate. You basically admitted that you were throwing out claims about something you didn't have a clue about, and now you are going to pretend that I'm the one who did it? Wow.

So they can bundle as long as no one complains?

Yet another red herring. That's like asking "so I can rob banks as long as no one reports it to the police?". No, they could still be breaking the law even if no one reports it to the authorities. And sometimes the authorities will start antitrust cases without anyone reporting it.

If you are breaking the law, you are doing so whether you are caught or not.

In this case, it looks like Opera knows more than the public since they worked with Microsoft in various standards bodies. Due to NDAs and such Opera can't talk about this in public, but they can report Microsoft to the authorities. Here are a couple of examples of Microsoft basically stalling and undermining open standards from around the time they were reported to the authorities:

They stalled CSS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-st...07Dec/0094.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-st...07Dec/0094.html

They destroyed ECMAScript 4, which was a threat to Silverlight apparently: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/arc...ris_wilson.html

Yes, that's Mozilla "whining" about Microsoft's actions.

I mean they ship Windows 7 with a calculator today and tomorrow someone complains to EU and Microsoft is suddenly "abusing their monopoly"?

Not unless it can be shown that by bundling the calculator, Microsoft broke the law. That is not necessarily so. You would need a pre-existing calculator market which was destroyed by Microsoft. Was there such a market? There was a browser market. People were making money from browsers before Microsoft started bundling IE.

Microsoft talking points?

Some people here are repeating the same old nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times over. It's as if they read from a list of talking points, completely ignoring the facts.

[Growled Member]

So they can bundle as long as no one complains? I mean they ship Windows 7 with a calculator today and tomorrow someone complains to EU and Microsoft is suddenly "abusing their monopoly"? Isn't that your stance? Notice how stupid that sounds? .

Makes the EU sound sort of wimpy, doesn't it?

[Antaris Veteran]

It's as if they read from a list of talking points, completely ignoring the facts.

And the facts are?

[Calum Veteran]

I can't believe that you are really asking someone to provide you with "proof" of basic competition law. Your Wikipedia was not proof, just a misrepresentation of the facts. Here's an article about European Competition Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Comm...ce_and_monopoly

As you can see, you can be a "monopoly by law" with a market share of a mere 40%.

Thank you for the proof I asked for :) You're right - by law, Microsoft are a monopoly.

However, perhaps the EU are wrong with their "anti-competitiveness" accusations? The article you linked to contains the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Comm...ce_and_monopoly[/url]'](a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; ? applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."

As far as I am aware Microsoft have done none of this.

Stop misrepresenting people's arguments. It has got nothing to do with being successful. A runner who takes illegal drugs in order to win might be "successful", but that is not why his gold medal is taken away. It's being taken away because he violated the rules he had to agree with in order to join the competition in the first place.

How have I misrepresented people's arguments? What I said there was completely right. Microsoft have done nothing illegal in becoming successful, so you can't compare it with an athlete taking drugs. All Microsoft have done is created and sold their operating system, like Apple. They have not done anything illegal.

You say Microsoft have bullied companies/people? Proof please.

I have already responded to this. Read my other posts in this thread. Why do you keep repeating claims that have already been addressed?

No, you haven't. At least not as far as I can see. May you link me to a post in this thread where to responded to the exact claim I made then please?

[d_ralphie]

@Antaris: Read the thread.

Makes the EU sound sort of wimpy, doesn't it?

What, and I thought today's Microsoft talking point was that the EU is a big, evil Communist bully, just out to get poor, innocent Microsoft :rolleyes:

It's really interesting to read all these snide remarks from people who don't have any proper arguments. You are basically saying that the police doesn't arrest every single criminal in the world, the police is "wimpy". Nice one.

The arguments of the Microsoft cheerleaders are getting increasingly self-contradictory and nonsensical. It's quite amazing what happens when you make up stuff as you go along in order to defend an indefensible position, instead of actually thinking about it before posting your opinion.

[O.G]

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!

You quoted me using something someone else said. But I will answer it anyway.

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

The proof of why Microsoft is a monopoly is in the definition of the word monopoly. You are arguing that Microsoft does not have significant control over the OS or browser market, which to be honest is they most retarded thing I've heard of in a long time. This says quite a lot about how ignorant you are on this issue. Apple is successful, again you completely miss the point. They have less that a 10% market share. 10% is the EU threshold. If they had 11% then you would actually have a point, but they don't, so neither do you. Microsoft are dominent in both markets, dominance gained through both legitimate and illegitimate means.

[Antaris Veteran]

@Antaris: Read the thread.

I have read the thread, several times, I just want to be clear on which facts you are on about, so please, enlighten us...

[Lechio]

Why?

They provide the platform and bundle their own products with that platform, destroying other companies that directly compete in that same area of market (anti-competitiveness).

They limit the user to only using Microsoft's own products by bundling them into the OS and not providing access to other solutions.

They've crippled the Web with their own "Web browser", by not following standards. Their objective is only lockdown to their products.

Those are a few of the obvious reasons...

Neither is Microsoft.

This obviously refers to a product in general; in this case an operating system.

So you've provided a Wikipedia entry to sustain that Microsoft is not a monopoly, that also defines Microsoft's practices?

They do have "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it", that product is called Windows. And the other individuals are the other companies that directly compete with them! In connection to the topic, the Web browser makers.

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.

If with that you are trying to imply that Linux is somehow a crippled OS, let me break it to you, Windows has huge limitations when compared to a Linux system.

One of its major ones is security, with currently 80% of Windows systems being exploitable. Why do you think mission critical machines do not choose to run Windows as their OS? Security and stability concerns, maybe?

Another huge limitation of Windows is licensing and price. Linux is free, you can download a Linux distribution and it's ready to use in any system where you wish to install it.

Viruses, spyware, adware, malware, (...). The Windows platform is plagued with them... To install "free" (as in cost only) software you have to worry about these factors. Does it have a virus? Does it come with spyware, malware...? Not to mention that you have to be running anti-virus, anti-spyware. All consuming precious system resources.

Not an issue with Linux systems.

Maybe you should consider backing up your opinion with facts, otherwise people might think that you are just another troll spreading FUD. Not the best opinion to have from a Moderator.

[Growled Member]

I have read the thread, several times, I just want to be clear on which facts you are on about, so please, enlighten us...

I hope you get a better response that I did. :laugh:

[d_ralphie]

@Antaris: I'm not going to waste my time on someone who completely ignores everything I post. You are just trying to change the subject.

As far as I am aware Microsoft have done none of this.

You need to quote more than just the parts that seem to agree with your flawed position. Just a few lines down you can read:

"If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market"

You could also, you know, look up what the EU itself said, such as:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...ence=MEMO/09/15

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...ence=MEMO/08/19

How have I misrepresented people's arguments?

You wrote: "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?"

I have already explained how this is not what "we guys" are telling you.

Microsoft have done nothing illegal in becoming successful

No one has claimed that being successful is illegal. Once again you are misrepresenting our arguments.

You say Microsoft have bullied companies/people? Proof please.

Do I really need to educate people on basic facts like this? Do you even know about the antitrust case in the US in the late 90s?

May you link me to a post in this thread where to responded to the exact claim I made then please?

Did you really miss all the comments pointing out that Apple is not a dominant player the way Microsoft is?

And the "being successful" comment has already been addressed. Even in this post. Please pay attention.

[XerXis]

Stop misrepresenting people's arguments. It has got nothing to do with being successful. A runner who takes illegal drugs in order to win might be "successful", but that is not why his gold medal is taken away. It's being taken away because he violated the rules he had to agree with in order to join the competition in the first place.

I'm pretty sure he wants to know which specific rule microsoft broke, a question he asked several times which you never answered. There are four possible answers:

(a) unfair selling prices

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers

© applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts

I would say opera and firefox have complained on the grounds of point B, IE not following the newest standards thereby holding back the entire internet, which is disadvantage for firefox, opera, ...

Anyway, you see, answering the question is not that hard is it? And it saves a lot of frustration. Without having to be smug or using big fonts.

[Syanide]

d_ralphie summed everything pretty good. If all of you are gonna keep one eye closed and repeat the same thing all over again ok. But you're not making any points you know. Plus he's the only one it seems to be backing his posts with real information, and more importantly knowledge. People just seem to be replying to the subject until they loose all credibility, post 'I read the thread bla bla bla' and then start all over again in the next thread.

[BajiRav]

That's the point. You rage against a "dumb law", but when asked about specifics you admit that you haven't a clue about said law. So why are you making these statements in the first place?

Um, in case you didn't notice, you were the one making the claim, and I was the one asking questions. Pretending that this was all just a setup to "trick" me just makes you look desperate. You basically admitted that you were throwing out claims about something you didn't have a clue about, and now you are going to pretend that I'm the one who did it? Wow.

Yet another red herring. That's like asking "so I can rob banks as long as no one reports it to the police?". No, they could still be breaking the law even if no one reports it to the authorities. And sometimes the authorities will start antitrust cases without anyone reporting it.

If you are breaking the law, you are doing so whether you are caught or not.

They stalled CSS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-st...07Dec/0094.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-st...07Dec/0094.html

They destroyed ECMAScript 4, which was a threat to Silverlight apparently: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/arc...ris_wilson.html

Yes, that's Mozilla "whining" about Microsoft's actions.

Not unless it can be shown that by bundling the calculator, Microsoft broke the law. That is not necessarily so. You would need a pre-existing calculator market which was destroyed by Microsoft. Was there such a market? There was a browser market. People were making money from browsers before Microsoft started bundling IE.

Some people here are repeating the same old nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times over. It's as if they read from a list of talking points, completely ignoring the facts.

It's not me who said that. Your post implied that it's ok as long as no one complains. There is a market for Calculator (FreeCalC), Notepad(Textpad, Notepad++ etc.), Wordpad(OpenOffice, AbiWord etc.)

Your nonsense has been refuted a million times already - Yes, Opera is asking Microsoft to distribute their patches/fixes via WU and it is in the same The register article and I bolded out and quoted the relevant part at least three times already.

In this case, it looks like Opera knows more than the public since they worked with Microsoft in various standards bodies. Due to NDAs and such Opera can't talk about this in public, but they can report Microsoft to the authorities. Here are a couple of examples of Microsoft basically stalling and undermining open standards from around the time they were reported to the authorities:

And you know this, how?

[Calum Veteran]

You quoted me using something someone else said. But I will answer it anyway.

No I didn't. I quoted you with what you said. You said Microsoft weren't a monopoly, so I asked for proof. d_ralphie gave me proof and I appreciate that.

The proof of why Microsoft is a monopoly is in the definition of the word monopoly. You are arguing that Microsoft does not have significant control over the OS or browser market, which to be honest is they most retarded thing I've heard of in a long time. This says quite a lot about how ignorant you are on this issue. Apple is successful, again you completely miss the point. They have less that a 10% market share. 10% is the EU threshold. If they had 11% then you would actually have a point, but they don't, so neither do you. Microsoft are dominent in both markets, dominance gained through both legitimate and illegitimate means.

You fail to see my point. I didn't say Microsoft don't have significant control over the operating system market, they just don't determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Also, I didn't know what the legal definition of a monopoly was. I thought I knew, but I didn't. Now I know and now I know they are a monopoly, by law.

My point is though that the EU are targeting Microsoft because a lot of consumers have bought their operating system, resulting in their operating system being successful. If Microsoft had 10% market share, the EU would not be targeting them in this way. As it stands, Microsoft have around 90% market share in the operating system market, so the EU are targeting them in this way.

Part of my point is that Microsoft have done nothing illegal to gain this market share. Microsoft have just developed an operating system and sold it. Last time I checked that wasn't illegal.

Are you saying companies shouldn't be allowed to become successful through legal means and if they do then they should be fined? If you are saying that then that is ridiculous.

[Antaris Veteran]

@Antaris: I'm not going to waste my time on someone who completely ignores everything I post. You are just trying to change the subject.

The fact is, you haven't given any facts, you're just trying to force your opinion on others over and over again. It doesn't matter what any others are saying, you will completely ignore us and just recycle the same old arguments.

[d_ralphie]

@XerXis: Actually, I posted several links with background info from the EU itself. Also, point C would be equally applicable.

@Antaris: Oh, I get it, all the links I've been posting are obviously just nonsense. It's not like what the EU says is the reason for the antitrust case is relevant or anything, right?

Your post implied that it's ok as long as no one complains.

No it did not, which I clearly explained to you in the post you just replied to.

There is a market for Calculator (FreeCalC), Notepad(Textpad, Notepad++ etc.), Wordpad(OpenOffice, AbiWord etc.)

Do you even read before replying? Evidently not.

Again: A market, as in someone making money. And did it exist before Microsoft bundled it with Windows?

Your nonsense has been refuted a million times already - Yes, Opera is asking Microsoft to distribute their patches/fixes via WU and it is in the same The register article and I bolded out and quoted the relevant part at least three times already.

And you left out the parts that made it clear that he was not talking about WU, but rather access to websites.

And you know this, how?

Do you even read people's posts? I even supplied you with links to discussions about what's going on behind closed doors at ECMA and W3C!

[Syanide]

No I didn't. I quoted you with what you said. You said Microsoft weren't a monopoly, so I asked for proof. d_ralphie gave me proof and I appreciate that.

You fail to see my point. I didn't say Microsoft don't have significant control over the operating system market, they just don't determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Also, I didn't know what the legal definition of a monopoly was. I thought I knew, but I didn't. Now I know and now I know they are a monopoly, by law.

My point is though that the EU are targeting Microsoft because a lot of consumers have bought their operating system, resulting in their operating system being successful. If Microsoft had 10% market share, the EU would not be targeting them in this way. As it stands, Microsoft have around 90% market share in the operating system market, so the EU are targeting them in this way.

Part of my point is that Microsoft have done nothing illegal to gain this market share. Microsoft have just developed an operating system and sold it. Last time I checked that wasn't illegal.

Are you saying companies shouldn't be allowed to become successful through legal means and if they do then they should be fined? If you are saying that then that is ridiculous.

You are completely missing the point.

If Microsoft had 90% of the market share, but chose to deal with the browser war differently, aka in a manner that wouldn't cripple the browser market by using the monopolistic behaviour (inforcing their own standards, bundling the browser with their OS and a lot more), the EU wouldn't be forced to do anything. Is that clear? The point we are addressing now is the bundling of the web browser, because obviously it took ages to get the ball rolling (by all those people who've suffered because of it - Opera, Mozilla, Google, Netscape...) on the legal front.

[Calum Veteran]

So you've provided a Wikipedia entry to sustain that Microsoft is not a monopoly, that also defines Microsoft's practices?

They do have "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it", that product is called Windows. And the other individuals are the other companies that directly compete with them! In connection to the topic, the Web browser makers.

They have sufficient control over the operating system market, if you want to call it 'control', but in no way to they determine the terms on which other individuals shall have access to Windows. Please inform me of how they do this?

If with that you are trying to imply that Linux is somehow a crippled OS, let me break it to you, Windows has huge limitations when compared to a Linux system.

[...]

Maybe you should consider backing up your opinion with facts, otherwise people might think that you are just another troll spreading FUD. Not the best opinion to have from a Moderator.

Ha, so I could be seen as a troll because I realise that some companies rely on Microsoft technologies for their needs? Examples being SharePoint Intranet websites and applications developed using the .NET framework. Nowhere in my post did I say Linux was a crippled operating system and I am fully aware Linux is not a crippled operating system.

Way to jump to conclusions there, though. You've just lost absolutely any respect I may have had for you. I am actually astounded somebody would assume things like that when my post simply did not say anything of the sort. I'm utterly astounded!

[XerXis]

No I didn't. I quoted you with what you said. You said Microsoft weren't a monopoly, so I asked for proof. d_ralphie gave me proof and I appreciate that.

You fail to see my point. I didn't say Microsoft don't have significant control over the operating system market, they just don't determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Also, I didn't know what the legal definition of a monopoly was. I thought I knew, but I didn't. Now I know and now I know they are a monopoly, by law.

My point is though that the EU are targeting Microsoft because a lot of consumers have bought their operating system, resulting in their operating system being successful. If Microsoft had 10% market share, the EU would not be targeting them in this way. As it stands, Microsoft have around 90% market share in the operating system market, so the EU are targeting them in this way.

Part of my point is that Microsoft have done nothing illegal to gain this market share. Microsoft have just developed an operating system and sold it. Last time I checked that wasn't illegal.

Are you saying companies shouldn't be allowed to become successful through legal means and if they do then they should be fined? If you are saying that then that is ridiculous.

I've answered your question a few posts back, something d_ralphie was not willing to do or couldn't.

The basis for the complaint is real simple actually, namely the fact that IE has been so far behind concerning standards that every site had to hack arround the IE bugs, thereby making it harder for standard compliant browsers to render the page correctly. This and the fact that microsoft bundles IE with windows gave it an unfair advantage and broke rule b of article 82. SO the EU commision acted upon this complaint and decided that yes microsoft had abused it's position to leverage their hold of the browser market.

That answers your question?

[d_ralphie]

I didn't say Microsoft don't have significant control over the operating system market, they just don't determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Pure quote mining. Read the rest of the Wikipedia article before pretending that it support your position.

My point is though that the EU are targeting Microsoft because a lot of consumers have bought their operating system, resulting in their operating system being successful.

No, they are targeting Microsoft because Microsoft violated European Competition Law.

If Microsoft had 10% market share, the EU would not be targeting them in this way. As it stands, Microsoft have around 90% market share in the operating system market, so the EU are targeting them in this way.

But they are NOT being targeted for having a 90% market share. They are being targeted for abusing that dominant market share.

Also, what Symod said.

Part of my point is that Microsoft have done nothing illegal to gain this market share.

Did you read the PDF I linked you to? About Microsoft's history of abuse? Furthermore, even if Microsoft didn't do anything illegal to gain domiance with Windows, they still did something illegal by abusing that dominance to destroy the competition in a different market. That's the whole point here!

Also, what Symod said.

Are you saying companies shouldn't be allowed to become successful through legal means and if they do then they should be fined?

Are you just trying to wind people up? If not, why are you constantly misrepresenting people's arguments and ignoring what they are actually saying?

[Antaris Veteran]

@Antaris: Oh, I get it, all the links I've been posting are obviously just nonsense. It's not like what the EU says is the reason for the antitrust case is relevant or anything, right?

And again, not providing these facts you apparently posted. Anybody can link to any article, but you are saying blood to stone that what you are telling us, is the gods truth, 100% correct, true fact.

The reality is, you're not providing what we have asked for, you're just trying to dismiss whatever answer we give you in light of the same old droll you've beel spilling for the last couple of days. This thread was about Mozilla questioning the proposal for the ballot screen. The Opera thread was about Opera wanting to fair access to the Windows Update website. Once again, you've driven this thread off topic.

[ew2x4]

Installing basic software by default in an OS should not be considered a monopoly. Especially when other software is allowed to flourish on said OS, and when competition and innovation is at an all time high. Judges may have interpreted this to be illegal, but I for one, disagree. I disagree even more with government of any kind forcing MS's hand into promoting competitors. Maybe it's the capitalist in me, or me living in a free nation, but it's one thing for a government to tell a company when it's in the wrong and another to force it to promote competitors. And I abhor IE.