Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[splur]

Why is this so hard for people to grasp competition law?! It's not about being for any sides, it's not about being equal per se, it's about stopping monopolies from happening and protecting consumers, albeit lawyers do have the ability to warp something into anything.

Microsoft is being hit hard because it is using its majority hold on its operating system market share (which is above 90%) to tie in their browser; it may surprise you but that can truly restrict its competitors because most people will choose the easiest path. That is one example of anti-competitive practice. Apple isn't being targeted about the same issue nor will it be targeted for a long time because it lacks a majority market share (except for possibly their mp3 player line) and thus lacks the ability to do anti-competitive practices in terms of abusing monopoly. So comparing Apple to Microsoft won't get you anywhere. Let's say Apple decided to make a deal with major mp3 vendors that the files will contain DRMs which will only allow the mp3s to be used with iPods, then they'll get slapped on the wrist for it. If a company decides not to file antitrust complaints against another company for anti-competitive practices, that's their own choice. Sorry for the Wikipedia, but it's the best shortened definition;

"Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices."

A monopoly is a monopoly, it doesn't matter if people chose it or not. The last thing you want in a free market is a corporation to have a monopoly over any sector, a lack of competition. Look at pharmaceuticals and Africa, that's not even a monopoly and it's bad because they have a majority hold on certain drugs. If you want to take a peak at what a real monopoly might look like, look underground into the drug or black market where lower quality can be sold at higher prices because of lack of competition in a given area. Why? Because they can.

Back to the topic, all Mozilla has said is that it's not happy with the ballot screen which you have to admit is skewed. The fact that the ballot screen is in IE says something to you. And I have a feeling Mozilla's demands will be much more reasonable than Opera's. Personally, I'm happy with the way things are because I've switched to FF (by myself, I'm a big boy now!) since a long time ago, but I know a lot of people still using IE just because they didn't know there was anything else.

[ncoday]

Thankfully, reading through this entire thread, most sane people that I tend to respect have been quite unanimous that this ballot issue is getting pretty ridiculous, and I agree with them in this situation. Personally, I think MS should simply be made to offer an option for users to completely remove IE from their system should they wish to, and that's about it.

A ballot screen would simply open a pandora box of further complaints and MS is rather stupid to agree to it.

Firstly, who should determine the order of browsers displayed? The European Commission? Does the EC now have its fingers inside a private corporation's product?

Secondly, what about the rest of the programs that Windows come with? Calc? Wordpad? Paint (Adobe anyone?), Windows Explorer? Command Prompt? Should all Windows users now be forced to go through 200 ballot screens before they can finally install Windows? And to think that it wasn't long ago that the time taken to install Windows decreased to the 15mins currently. Some say "No! Windows is fine if it's a successful product, but it must have a ballot screen to be fair!" Inwardly, they are secretly smirking at Windows users anticipating the day they will be put through the 200 ballot screens, and then laughing maniacally, claiming their OS of choice is "superior" in terms of ease of installation.

As to this current topic, my respect for Mozilla has dipped somewhat, now that they are jumping on the bandwagon in sticking their hands into the (Microsoft and EC's) cookie jar, but as Frank Fontaine said, I'm not about to boycott any company simply for this. Firefox is still my current browser of choice, simply because I enjoy what it offers.

Hallelujah!! [sic?]

Someone I can agree with.

My biggest concern is that with a Ballot Box, you will get people who will choose Opera and then if it crashes and totally screws the pooch with their computer, they will call Microsoft to complain.

They will not see the difference.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp competition law?! It's not about being for any sides, it's not about being equal per se, it's about stopping monopolies from happening and protecting consumers, albeit lawyers do have the ability to warp something into anything.

Microsoft is being hit hard because it is using its majority hold on its operating system market share (which is above 90%) to tie in their browser; it may surprise you but that can truly restrict its competitors because most people will choose the easiest path. That is one example of anti-competitive practice. Apple isn't being targeted about the same issue nor will it be targeted for a long time because it lacks a majority market share (except for possibly their mp3 player line) and thus lacks the ability to do anti-competitive practices in terms of abusing monopoly. So comparing Apple to Microsoft won't get you anywhere. Let's say Apple decided to make a deal with major mp3 vendors that the files will contain DRMs which will only allow the mp3s to be used with iPods, then they'll get slapped on the wrist for it. If a company decides not to file antitrust complaints against another company for anti-competitive practices, that's their own choice. Sorry for the Wikipedia, but it's the best shortened definition;

"Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices."

A monopoly is a monopoly, it doesn't matter if people chose it or not. The last thing you want in a free market is a corporation to have a monopoly over any sector, a lack of competition. Look at pharmaceuticals and Africa, that's not even a monopoly and it's bad because they have a majority hold on certain drugs. If you want to take a peak at what a real monopoly might look like, look underground into the drug or black market where lower quality can be sold at higher prices because of lack of competition in a given area. Why? Because they can.

Back to the topic, all Mozilla has said is that it's not happy with the ballot screen which you have to admit is skewed. The fact that the ballot screen is in IE says something to you. And I have a feeling Mozilla's demands will be much more reasonable than Opera's. Personally, I'm happy with the way things are because I've switched to FF (by myself, I'm a big boy now!) since a long time ago, but I know a lot of people still using IE just because they didn't know there was anything else.

So we should punish a company for making a product that is so good that lots of people want to use it?

By the way, do not tell me people do not have a choice - it is just a matter of whether or not people choose to exercise that choice. Microsoft should not be punished because people are too weak to exercise their right to choose to NOT buy a windows-based computer.

[Growled Member]

re-read your post, because Apple has "sufficient control" over Macs (the "particular product or service") to "determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

However, Apple does not have a dominate share of the market. It's all about total marketshare. It's not about what one individual company does with their product. That's why monopoly laws apply to Intel and Microsoft and not AMD and Apple.

[splur]

So we should punish a company for making a product that is so good that lots of people want to use it?

By the way, do not tell me people do not have a choice - it is just a matter of whether or not people choose to exercise that choice. Microsoft should not be punished because people are too weak to exercise their right to choose to NOT buy a windows-based computer.

No, we should stop companies from abusing their position of power. You have to stop looking at it in terms of punishment, but more as a deterrence. Microsoft has the ability to succeed without knocking off it's competitors, and us as consumers benefit from that. When a company has a majority hold on a market share and uses that to crush its competitors, it will no longer be a matter of whether products are "good" or "bad". A market without competition is not a free market at all. Saying "Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly so it doesn't matter" would be like saying that you don't have to worry about the Nazis, they've only invaded Poland so far. Prevention is key.

I never said people don't have a choice. I know we're on a tech forum, but if you look outside the box for a second, a lot of people use IE simply because they they don't know any better.

Seriously, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote...

Edited August 20, 2009 by splur

[CuCumber]

So we should punish a company for making a product that is so good that lots of people want to use it?

Windows comes preinstalled. Most people simply do not choose it, they are practically forced to PAY FOR IT.

By the way, do not tell me people do not have a choice - it is just a matter of whether or not people choose to exercise that choice. Microsoft should not be punished because people are too weak to exercise their right to choose to NOT buy a windows-based computer.

Do you think it's right that you have to work this hard not to pay for software you don't want:

Windows refund

What is the price of preinstalled Windows? Why is it being hidden so well?

To make it look like it comes without any cost.

How would this look:

A computer without OS 600$

Same computer with Windows OS 700$

How do you think that would look with netbooks? People would notice how Microsoft screws them.

[Subject Delta]

So anyone who criticizes Microsoft and explains how Microsoft's abuse continues to this day is "anti-Microsoft"? Wow.

No. I have criticised them myself, but you just go over the top. Pretty much every post you make is some delusional rant about how Microsoft are evil law breaking scum. It is quiet clear to me that you are just an anti-microsoft nut.

Well having waded through all this thread (phew), being no MS hater or lover, using 3 different browsers for different purposes i can only say:

d_ralphie is the most evenhanded, factual poster here. All i see as 'arguments' against his (granted somewhat over enthousiastic) posts is ad hominem's larded with ignorance and preconceit.

I declare him overall winner. Well done, d_ralphie but try to be less emotional :beer:

Epic fail :laugh:

Which could be a point against their practices regarding iTunes, but Macs?

Yes, they use proprietary lockdowns and dodgy EULAs to restrict their OS to apple branded machines.

[Growled Member]

I wonder if IE/Windows drops below 40% will they be allowed to stop bundling?

Yes, if Windows marketshare dropped to the point where they were no longer the dominate player, then monopoly laws would no longer apply to them. I doubt they would want that to happen, though.

It just looks to me like if it's wrong to bundle IE and WMP then it's wrong for Windows to bundle anything. Everything they add to Windows (like zip utilities and burning capabilities and firewall) infringes on other products out there. If you unbundle one thing then why not everything? Why wait until someone complains?

[ncoday]

You are not forced to pay for Jack. Use your brain and exercise some choice!

Does Microsoft hold a gun, a real gun, to your head telling you to buy Windows?

No, Windows is just the most convenient whipping post for everyone who is too spineless to exercise some free will and choice.

If you don't like Windows, make another choice. People just complain because the other choices are not as cheap or easy to use. Well, if you don't want to pay a dealership to work on your car, it won't be easy figuring out how to work on your car.

I am so sick and tired of people complaining and wanting the government to regulate their entire life, telling every little company and person how to run everything.

/rant

I figure my opinion is not very popular, so I will stop coming into these threads.

Last parting opinion, I am truly scared for the public in general in that the more power you give the government, the more power it will have to take away all your freedoms!

[Calum Veteran]

To some of the members I have been discussing this with who offer a different viewpoint - Lechio, d_ralphie, Symod and others -

I have decided I do not know enough about this issue to continue to even have an opinion, let alone express it.

You have made me aware of competition law and referenced me with what may be evidence of bullying from Microsoft, so I really do just need to sit down and find time to read this all through before I form an opinion myself.

I think I was very premature to start calling you all wrong, especially when I was initially wrong on the legal definition of a 'monopoly' and I obviously didn't know anything about competition law.

I do like Microsoft, but I dislike Internet Explorer and Microsoft's poor attempt at creating a web browser with comparable features to that of the other major web browsers, so there was no bias towards Microsoft when I posted, I just posted what I thought was fair. Obviously, I don't know enough about the accusations against Microsoft and I thank you all for taking the time to make me aware of this and make me realise I should really ensure I know everything about an issue before I try to form an opinion on it ;)

I'm sorry that you feel that way and, if it is worth anything, I present my apologies to you. It was in relation to this comment of yours that I've replied that way:

<snipped quote>

Maybe you should have explained in detail what you meant and also have added that those same people and companies could do a lot more when using an OS like Linux that does not have the limitations that Windows has. Maybe this would be a more correct observation.

Thank you :) Now you've pointed it out, I do agree that I should have explained my statement of "they may not be able to do all they wish on Linux". It was only natural of you to assume I meant Linux was inadequate because 1) I didn't provide a reason for my statement and 2) so many people out there bash Linux, stating that.

For the record, though, I do think GNU/Linux is a fantastic operating system, from what I've read about it and seen of it. I've never used a Linux-based operating system, but I have friends who do and have heard a lot about it.

Whilst I love Windows and think it's also a fantastic operating system, I will admit that Microsoft can tie companies down to their own platforms with software such as SharePoint and the .NET Framework - this is something I don't mind, because whilst these companies will be tied down, most of them will be able to do all they wish... they will just have more choice and freedoms if they opted to use a Linux-based operating system.

Oh and just a point of note - SharePoint 2010 will have support for multiple browsers ;) It's currently under development, but it will have this support :) This still doesn't mean Microsoft don't tie other software down to their own platforms, I just thought I'd inform anybody who was unaware of this.

[d_ralphie]

If Microsoft had purchased DoubleClick, you'd be the one whining that they broke the law yet again.

This is just another pathetic attack from a Microsoft cheerleader who fails to come up with proper arguments, so he has to invent lies about those who crush his pathetic excuses for arguments.

They way I see it, if any other company does anything questionable, you bend over backwards to service defend them and take on some holier-than-thou attitude.

Which company? Examples, please!

Again, the anti-trust complaint was filed against Google because the purchase of DoubleClick made Google a monopoly in the search field. Not the engine.

The antitrust complaint against Google was filed by Microsoft in relation to search engines. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The point here is, Microsoft is filing antitrust complaints as well, so if someone is going to boycott anyone over these things, they will have to boycott Microsoft too. And Google.

Well the "big blue E" sure didn't stop another browser from taking the market share, now did it?

As Mozilla explains, this is just proof that the market is broken:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

I wonder how many times I have to paste this before people stop repeating the same old misconceptions.

[d_ralphie]

I am only curious: has anyone posted in Opera and Mozilla forums?

Yes, people have been posting links. The Microsoft cheerleaders are trolling over at the Mozilla forums, spreading their misinformation there.

Microsoft should not be responsible for maintaining updates for competing browsers

Who said they should?

You can not call Microsoft a monopoly because they own 90% of the OS market. PEOPLE made that choice, we purchased it because its a better product.

Yes, Microsoft IS a monopoly because they have a 90% market share. That's the very definition of a monopoly. It's amazing that you even try to deny this. It's basic knowledge.

Its like the Super bowl, more people watch that than any other sporting event, so every company out there wants a commercial on it.. But you know what, they pay out the a$$ to have that commercial shown. Microsoft should be able to do this with Windows.

Microsoft broke the law. That's why they are being punished, and steps taken to restore the free market.

You want me to put your product on Windows update?

Who said anything about that?

[petrossa]

I wonder how many times I have to paste this before people stop repeating the same old misconceptions.

Calum does a good job of trying to work out the real issues, sign of an honest open mind.

The other 'opponents' are really locked down in some kind of patriotic defense of Microsoft which amazingly they continue to see as an American company whilst it's actually a multinational with it's main seat in the US.

Unilever and Shell are both seated in Holland, Shell is even called Royal Dutch Shell but that doesn't make it a Dutch company.

So i guess you've made your point eloquently, quit while you're ahead. Everything else will be just a shouting match with the deaf that don't want to hear.

[d_ralphie]

Thankfully, reading through this entire thread, most sane people that I tend to respect have been quite unanimous that this ballot issue is getting pretty ridiculous

Really? They have not been able to present their case for that in a factual, rational manner. On the contrary, the people you are referring to as "sane" are posting the exact same misconceptions based on lack of knowledge that you are posting.

Personally, I think MS should simply be made to offer an option for users to completely remove IE from their system should they wish to, and that's about it.

And you know the situation in the market better than the EC, and you think this would be the best way to restore competition in the browser market?

A ballot screen would simply open a pandora box of further complaints and MS is rather stupid to agree to it.

Microsoft has no choice. They will do what the EU orders them to, or they will be fined. They broke the law, and that has consequences.

Firstly, who should determine the order of browsers displayed? The European Commission? Does the EC now have its fingers inside a private corporation's product?

The authorities make decisions affecting our lives all the time. For example, the authorities have decided that it's illegal to murder, rape and steal. That migh infringe on someone's "right to murder, rape and steal" (right to do whatever the heck they want), but it's the law. The people has decided that they want such laws for protection, just like Competition Law exists to protect the free market.

Secondly, what about the rest of the programs that Windows come with? Calc? Wordpad? Paint (Adobe anyone?), Windows Explorer? Command Prompt? Should all Windows users now be forced to go through 200 ballot screens before they can finally install Windows?

Do any of these break the law? You will have to establish that first. If you can't, then no.

[d_ralphie]

Pretty much every post you make is some delusional rant about how Microsoft are evil law breaking scum. It is quiet clear to me that you are just an anti-microsoft nut.

So pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law, and why other people's arguments and claims are invalid or wrong is "delusional"?

How is pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law being "an anti-microsoft nut", exactly?

Since you aren't anti-Microsoft to the core, you must obviously be a Microsoft fan and supporter. Your logic dictates that.

Criticize Microsoft: You are a delusional, anti-Microsoft nut.

Don't criticize Microsoft: You love the company, and don't think it can do anyting wrong. It's pure good, and makes no mistakes.

Amazing logic.

Microsoft makes the operating system, they should have the choice of what to put in it.

Their choice ended when they broke the law. It's that simple.

Absolutely ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to enforce the law and restore competition in the free market?

Microsoft made the OS.

They also broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences.

[Treemonkeys]

How did MS break the law by shipping an OS with a browser? Why is the law worth following if that is enough to break it?

[DDStriker]

@d_ralphie what if microsoft was fined for not complying with the EU where would it go from there? would the eu block them from releasing to the market as well until they comply or will the fine give them a free-pass?

I guess i'm thinking on the lines of paying a certain amount for bail allowing you to proceed with you're normal life :laugh:

Obviously. There should be a way to replace/choose those at the time of install and also have those choices presented to the user in a package manager.

to hell with you and your linux :p

[d_ralphie]

How did MS break the law by shipping an OS with a browser? Why is the law worth following if that is enough to break it?

Maybe you should educate yourself before posting knee-jerk posts. Microsoft broke the law by abusing its dominant position in the OS market to destroy competition in the browser market.

@d_ralphie what if microsoft was fined for not complying with the EU where would it go from there? would the eu block them from releasing to the market as well until they comply or will the fine give them a free-pass?

The fines would continue until Microsoft either complied, or collapsed.

I don't understand how Firefox is evidence of how the market is broken?

Which part did you not understand? Do I need to quote it to you again?

When it takes a non-profit organization relying on free labor and donations to even make a dent, that clearly shows that the market is broken. In a working market, commercial entities are able to compete.

There is no market for paid-for browsers anymore

There was a browser market before Microsoft entered, and there is a browser market now. Just because browsers aren't being charged for directly for the most part (there are some exceptions), that doesn't mean that there isn't a market, and that browser vendors aren't making money. On the contrary, several companies are making money off of browsers, including Mozilla Corp., Opera, and Japanese Access.

The market is there, just like there is a searc engine market even if you don't pay directly for searches.

[Kyang]

d_ralphie, do you agree that bundling a browser into the OS isn't against the law?

[BajiRav]

When it takes a non-profit organization relying on free labor and donations to even make a dent, that clearly shows that the market is broken. In a working market, commercial entities are able to compete.

So the sole reason Linux exists because the market is broken? You and the mozilla rep who spewed this crap = get real.

[carmatic]

i wonder if mozilla speaking out against microsoft would have jeapordized their position on the ballot screen next to IE?

[Shokus]

Calum does a good job of trying to work out the real issues, sign of an honest open mind.

The other 'opponents' are really locked down in some kind of patriotic defense of Microsoft which amazingly they continue to see as an American company whilst it's actually a multinational with it's main seat in the US.

Unilever and Shell are both seated in Holland, Shell is even called Royal Dutch Shell but that doesn't make it a Dutch company.

So i guess you've made your point eloquently, quit while you're ahead. Everything else will be just a shouting match with the deaf that don't want to hear.

That's the way to frame an argument, brand and generalize your debating partners as "American patriotism" and Microsoft lovers and what not.

This will be a very slippery slope for MS should they be stupid enough to continue bending backwards to ridiculous demands. I've popcorn prepared for the show.

[O.G]

So the sole reason Linux exists because the market is broken? You and the mozilla rep who spewed this crap = get real.

No, you miss the point. Like so many other people in this thread. Linux only exists because on the whole, people do the work for nothing. It could not survive as a commercial, for profit entity even if it wanted to. That is why the market is broken.

@Kyang

It is illegal when you are dominant and bundling for the sole purpose of squeezing out competitors in alternate markets. What part of that don't you people understand?

[petrossa]

well, as is observed by others, most of the EU/Opera/Ballot opponents use emotional, non factual arguments, refuse to even read what is said and just go on and on and on the Microsoft is the poor battered company against the great unreasonable bully EU.

Sorry, but when people post unreasonable, emotional arguments there's something other at play then just a 'difference of opinion'

The facts have clearly posted, over and over again. If one continues ranting against the facts, well how can one call that 'debating'.

Contradict the facts with other facts, or prove the facts as presented are false. Discuss the implications, that's debate.

[Subject Delta]

So pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law, and why other people's arguments and claims are invalid or wrong is "delusional"?

How is pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law being "an anti-microsoft nut", exactly?

Since you aren't anti-Microsoft to the core, you must obviously be a Microsoft fan and supporter. Your logic dictates that.

It is about a little thing called moderation. You don't have any moderation, you just slag off Microsoft at every opportunity. I on the other hand criticise them when I feel they are wrong, and praise them when I feel they are right. You need to have a look at your own logic, not mine because mine isn't flawed.

[Treemonkeys]

Maybe you should educate yourself before posting knee-jerk posts. Microsoft broke the law by abusing its dominant position in the OS market to destroy competition in the browser market.

Maybe I know a thing or two about economics? Maybe you can explain to me how monopolies are created and how government intervention helps that along? Maybe you would like to discuss the philosophy of morals and the initiation of force? Maybe how you can explain how adding more features to your product is abuse?

Maybe you should really think about and question why laws certain laws are needed - and if they are needed, instead of assuming they are a good thing. Maybe you should study the historical effects of similar laws.

This topic is my bread and butter, far from a knee jerk reaction.