Microsoft, Internet Explorer, and the EU court decision

[Molinaro]

The EU courts decided against Microsoft with respect to bundling the IE browser with Windows. They said it gave them an unfair advantage over other browser makers.

So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?

Furthermore, do any of those browser makers put their product on a shelf for consumers to buy? I don't think they do. Don't they in fact count on Microsoft to give people IE so that they can use it to download their product as a replacement?

I foresee issues with the release of Windows 7 in the EU, caused by that court decision that will harm the consumers far more than it was suposed to help.

[laca]

The EU courts decided against Microsoft with respect to bundling the IE browser with Windows. They said it gave them an unfair advantage over other browser makers.

So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?

Furthermore, do any of those browser makers put their product on a shelf for consumers to buy? I don't think they do. Don't they in fact count on Microsoft to give people IE so that they can use it to download their product as a replacement?

I foresee issues with the release of Windows 7 in the EU, caused by that court decision that will harm the consumers far more than it was suposed to help.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/eu-criticizes-microsofts-ie-un-bundling-but-does-it-matter-anymore/

“The commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers,” the EC wrote regarding the standalone software proposal. “Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.”

[Molinaro]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

[laca]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?


They don't have to include them, they could bundle IE AND offer options to download some other ones.


I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

That might be, but there are those problems you mentioned...

[jsiv]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?
Because Microsoft broke the law? They caused damage, they have to help fix it. It's not entirely unreasonable.

[Molinaro]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.

I do not in any way shape or form think of Microsoft as having broken any real laws. The EU reacted extremely stupidly in their accusations against Microsoft. And the courts proved that they are a bunch of clowns by convicting them.

It is beyond riduculous that Microsoft should be in any way dictated to as to what constitutes an OS and what does not.

[laca]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.


That's a bold statement.


I do not in any way shape or form think of Microsoft as having broken any real laws. The EU reacted extremely stupidly in their accusations against Microsoft. And the courts proved that they are a bunch of clowns by convicting them.


It is not your place to decide whether they broke any laws or not... Justice is not a democracy.


It is beyond riduculous that Microsoft should be in any way dictated to as to what constitutes an OS and what does not.

I beg to differ... On the contrary: they do not get to decide what constitutes an OS or not.

[ddt]

Because Microsoft broke the law? They caused damage, they have to help fix it. It's not entirely unreasonable.
I agree. :)


So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?.
I don't see the problem. From the Wired article:
Microsoft floated the idea on Thursday of offering a browserless version of Windows 7 for the estimated 5 percent of Windows users who purchase Windows in boxed software from retailers. Microsoft also suggested shipping an Internet Explorer-less version to computer manufacturers who could then choose what browsers to install on the computers they manufacture — which would let Windows machines ship with multiple browsers and let manufacturers charge software makers for the privilege if they like.
So, 95% of the sales of Windows consists of OEM sales - bundled with a new computer. Do you think that Dell, HP, etc., will sell a PC without a browser? Let them sort out who gives them the best deal - Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera or whomever they shop at to install a browser.

Those 5% sales of non-OEM Windows are probably done by people who are computer-savvy enough to download a browser with their other computer, or at a friend's.

[ddt]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.
By that measure, Teddy Roosevelt (the "trust buster") would be a clown too?

[geni]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

The ruleing is consistent with other ruleings against microsofts actions. While it could be argued that it is largely outdated at this point (people expect modern OSes to come with browsers) microsofts past actions have clearly been anti competative.

Microsoft's current moves look like an attempt to get the courts to back off.

[dtugg]

They don't have to include them, they could bundle IE AND offer options to download some other ones.

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

I also wonder which browsers the EU thinks Microsoft should have included as other options. If they were interested in being fair, it would have had to be all of them, rather than say just Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

And what about Paint? Force them to include every competitors' product also. And Windows Firewall too. Other companies make free firewalls. Why should Microsoft have an unfair advantage over them? And why should Microsoft's desktop gadgets be bundled with Windows over similar products by Google and Yahoo!? Something should be done about the unfair advantage Microsoft holds there.

Don't get me started on the free games that Microsoft includes in Windows. That is just totally unfair. If Microsoft wants to include free games with Windows, they should also distribute every free game in existence along with them.

[realpaladin]

Ok, we are calling Neelie back... she seems to be aiming for a position as our Prime Minister... happy now?

[realpaladin]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

I also wonder which browsers the EU thinks Microsoft should have included as other options. If they were interested in being fair, it would have had to be all of them, rather than say just Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

And what about Paint? Force them to include every competitors' product also. And Windows Firewall too. Other companies make free firewalls. Why should Microsoft have an unfair advantage over them? And why should Microsoft's desktop gadgets be bundled with Windows over similar products by Google and Yahoo!? Something should be done about the unfair advantage Microsoft holds there.

Don't get me started on the free games that Microsoft includes in Windows. That is just totally unfair. If Microsoft wants to include free games with Windows, they should also distribute every free game in existence along with them.

Let's just see what happens with the Google OS and Chrome :)

[CelticRose]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.
I agree. I don't see how bundling IE with Windows forces someone to use IE. I have Vista and I'm not forced to use IE -- if I want to I can set Firefox as my default browser and use that instead.

[Molinaro]

By that measure, Teddy Roosevelt (the "trust buster") would be a clown too?

I have no idea to what you are refering.


I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.

[ddt]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.
The case might seem to be a bit antiquated, but that has more to do with Microsoft dragging its feet and not complying with earlier measures (and let's not forget, outright lying to the US judge). And no, most people don't bother with downloading another browser when they've already got one.


And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.
I think you missed this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Player#European_Commission_case).

[realpaladin]

I have no idea to what you are refering.


I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.

Troll, yes?

You can not be this person you seem to be here...

[ddt]

I have no idea to what you are refering.
All these decisions simply have to do with anti-monopoly laws. It's really that simple.


I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.
Did you read them?

[dtugg]

The case might seem to be a bit antiquated, but that has more to do with Microsoft dragging its feet and not complying with earlier measures (and let's not forget, outright lying to the US judge).

If they aren't complying with earlier measures than the EU can get them for that. Trying to force them to distribute competitors' products is just plain ridiculous.


And no, most people don't bother with downloading another browser when they've already got one.

So?


I think you missed this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Player#European_Commission_case).

I've seen Europeans complain about how expensive Windows is in Europe compared to the US. 500 million euro fines for including a media player with Windows probably has plenty to do with it.

[Molinaro]

All these decisions simply have to do with anti-monopoly laws. It's really that simple.


Did you read them?

I did not read the actual decisions as written by the courts.

I do know that it is absurd to think that a government gets to redefine what constitutes an OS.

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.

IE is more of the same. It is a program designed to allow the user to open files of type .htm and various other web based file types. To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.

That is what their judgements amount to, in the eyes of this user.

[jsiv]

The problem is that it goes back to the mid-90s, when a web browser was in fact not an integral part of the operating system, but rather a separate market with several commercial players. Microsoft came along and made one, and then went and integrated it into the operating system* (a different market) and thus used their dominant position in one market (they basically had 100% of the OS market) to get an unfair advantage in another. That is what is considered illegal, not merely the act of bundling a piece of software.

Things have of course changed a lot since then, which means it's really too late to just rip the browser out. It's now an integrated part of any modern OS, and so doing that isn't a good solution. That's why there has been all this talk of forcing Microsoft to offer users a choice of third-party browsers instead, in an attempt to make up for the damage done.

Have you ever wondered why the only products that seem to compete well with Microsoft products are ones that are free and open source? This is not a coincidence, it's because it's next to impossible to compete commercially.


*Actually two operating systems, as they got IE bundled with Mac OS as well in return for helping Apple out.

[ddt]

If they aren't complying with earlier measures than the EU can get them for that. Trying to force them to distribute competitors' products is just plain ridiculous.
Seeing that they have, in fact, profited from distributing IE for years against competition laws, it seems to me a fair measure to rectify the market place. The fines they've had to pay the EU don't help the other browser manufacturers to a competitive place in the market. Exposure does. Compare it with a thief: he'll have to do time for breaking the law (cf. the fines MS had to pay the EU), but also to give back the stolen goods to the rightful owner(s). Compare the latter to MS having to distribute competitors' goods.


I've seen Europeans complain about how expensive Windows is in Europe compared to the US. 500 million euro fines for including a media player with Windows probably has plenty to do with it.
Well, I haven't heard those complaints, but then I hardly have friends with MS :). And I notice that all computer stuff, both hardware and software, is cheaper in the US - at best, it's 1 euro for 1 dollar, which is a bad deal with the exchange rates for a couple of years. Did MS raise the price of Windows in the EU after the WMP ruling?

[dtugg]

Seeing that they have, in fact, profited from distributing IE for years against competition laws, it seems to me a fair measure to rectify the market place. The fines they've had to pay the EU don't help the other browser manufacturers to a competitive place in the market. Exposure does. Compare it with a thief: he'll have to do time for breaking the law (cf. the fines MS had to pay the EU), but also to give back the stolen goods to the rightful owner(s). Compare the latter to MS having to distribute competitors' goods.

I thought you were talking about something else. I just think it is completely ridiculous that including a web browser with Windows is considered anti-competitive. If they tried to prevent users from installing a different browsers, that would be different. If including a web browser is anti competitive, including any kind of software is anti-competitive and if Microsoft shipped Windows without any software bundled, it would be completely useless out of the box. Does the EU want that? Is that good for consumers?

Here is a list of software/utilities that are included with Windows 7 in the US and for which there are competitors:

IE
Paint
Notepad
WordPad
Media Player
Media Center
DVD Maker
Desktop Gadgets
Fax and Scan
Sound Recorder
Snipping Tool
Windows Firewall
Disk Management (to create disk partitions and such)
Disk Cleanup
Disk Defrag
Backup and Restore
Calculator
Remote Desktop Connection
Speech Recognition

And I'm sure there is more.

Do you think that it is anti-competitive that Windows ships with all of this? Should they be forced to strip everything and sell it bare-bones, or alternatively distribute products of competitors along with theirs?


Well, I haven't heard those complaints, but then I hardly have friends with MS :). And I notice that all computer stuff, both hardware and software, is cheaper in the US - at best, it's 1 euro for 1 dollar, which is a bad deal with the exchange rates for a couple of years. Did MS raise the price of Windows in the EU after the WMP ruling?

I have no idea if the price of Window went up after that. I was more saying that the reason it is more expensive may be that the EU makes it more expensive to do business in Europe in general. And this wouldn't just be a Microsoft thing.

[ddt]

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.
Opening an AVI file is done with
fopen("mymovie.avi", "rb")
or an equivalent library call/system call. WMP interprets the file. There is no reason why Windows should provide such a program. After all, it doesn't provide a program to open DOC-files, XLS-files, PDF-files or a host of other common file types. Anything beyond a simple text editor (which you'll need to edit your INI-files) is not part of the OS.


IE is more of the same. It is a program designed to allow the user to open files of type .htm and various other web based file types. To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.
And the same here.

For both media file types and HTML-files, I see no technical reason at all why the OS should have any kind of integrated support. For speeding up file access, maybe an mmap-like system call, but that works on any file type.


The problem is that it goes back to the mid-90s, when a web browser was in fact not an integral part of the operating system, but rather a separate market with several commercial players. Microsoft came along and made one, and then went and integrated it into the operating system* (a different market) and thus used their dominant position in one market (they basically had 100% of the OS market) to get an unfair advantage in another. That is what is considered illegal, not merely the act of bundling a piece of software.

Things have of course changed a lot since then, which means it's really too late to just rip the browser out. It's now an integrated part of any modern OS, and so doing that isn't a good solution. That's why there has been all this talk of forcing Microsoft to offer users a choice of third-party browsers instead, in an attempt to make up for the damage done.
I remember well that MS claimed before the US judge that IE was (then) an inseparable part of the OS; and that the prosecution showed that they had, in fact, ripped IE out of Windows, much to MS' dismay as they had now shown to be lying to the court. AFAIK, since then they have (on purpose? I guess) integrated IE into the Windows kernel, so that IE in fact is only a skin on top of relevant library calls.

I don't see a valid reason why a browser has to be tied into the kernel. There is no single technical reason to do so. The fact that Firefox, Opera, etc. also work in Windows and at comparable speed is proof of that. So, if you say that a browser is an "integrated part of any modern OS", we have to discuss: what constitutes an OS?

It will be no surprise I prefer the technical view of what is an OS. Then, an OS is a kernel with a fairly minimal set of tools to administer it: DIR, COPY, EDIT, etc., and/or their graphical equivalents. A browser, a mailer, a word processor, etc., have no place in that view of an OS.

If, on the other hand you take the view that an OS offers also those tools that the vast majority of your customers need and use, then you'd indeed have to include a browser, a mailer, a media player, a word processor and a spreadsheet program and maybe some other programs into your definition. Given that MS itself does not include the two latter with Windows - they're separately sold as part of Office - we have to reject this view for this case.


Have you ever wondered why the only products that seem to compete well with Microsoft products are ones that are free and open source? This is not a coincidence, it's because it's next to impossible to compete commercially
Just ask Spyglass - they'd get a percentage of the profits on IE :). It's very hard to compete with a product that's free and installed standard on your customers' computers. And at times (IE 5), IE has been the best game in town. I do note that Opera has held out, even in times that they charged for their browser.

[dtugg]

If, on the other hand you take the view that an OS offers also those tools that the vast majority of your customers need and use, then you'd indeed have to include a browser, a mailer, a media player, a word processor and a spreadsheet program and maybe some other programs into your definition. Given that MS itself does not include the two latter with Windows - they're separately sold as part of Office - we have to reject this view for this case.

But Windows does come with a word processor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Wordpad) It's not as powerful as Word, of course, but it works just fine. One could use it to write it a school report for example, and most other things people need a word processor for.

And I very seriously doubt that most people have a need for a spreadsheet program.

[Wudang]

Step way back in time - Microsoft would not even exist if a similar ruling had not been made against IBM many years ago, that IBM unfairly dominated the IBM market.
Google IBM consent decree
then STFU.

[ddt]

But Microsoft does come with a word processor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Wordpad) It's not as powerful as Word, of course, but it works just fine. One could use it to write it a school report for example, and most other things people need a word processor for.
From that wiki page:
WordPad can format and print text, but lacks intermediate features such as a spell checker, thesaurus, and support for tables.
Have you seen some of the people spell here? :D Tables seem to me to be a very useful feature too, even for a school report.


And I very seriously doubt that most people have a need for a spreadsheet program.
For the home user, you may very well have a point there. But the business user? They don't get Excel packaged with the Professional Edition of Windows either.

[Mitchell314]

A) This is quibbling, but I noticed reference to "What is the OS then?" AFAIK, just plain Windows is technically not an OS, although the Windows Kernel is. Somebody would have to look it up to verify/debunk it, as this is off the top of my head.

B) Should Apple be sued for bundling Safari automatically? Hey, Mac OS X is all about integration, and Apple's own applications extremely so. I don't see the problem so long as you can easily get, install, and use another browser in Windows. Hey, if the Ubuntu devs made their own browser and automatically added it, would anybody complain? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I find this pointless and tedious.

[Ducky]

A) This is quibbling,<snip>

Welcome to the computer section.

<snip> but I find this pointless and tedious.

OS wars usually are.

[laca]

Here is a list of software/utilities that are included with Windows 7 in the US and for which there are competitors:

IE
Paint
Notepad
WordPad
Media Player
Media Center
DVD Maker
Desktop Gadgets
Fax and Scan
Sound Recorder
Snipping Tool
Windows Firewall
Disk Management (to create disk partitions and such)
Disk Cleanup
Disk Defrag
Backup and Restore
Calculator
Remote Desktop Connection
Speech Recognition

And I'm sure there is more.

Do you think that it is anti-competitive that Windows ships with all of this? Should they be forced to strip everything and sell it bare-bones, or alternatively distribute products of competitors along with theirs?


Wow, so many strawmen. Only IE is relevant in this case. The question is: did Microsoft break antitrust laws with IE? The EC thinks it did. Hence the ruling. Simple as that. You don't have to like it.

I do not think for moment there is someone who seriously considers that Microsoft broke antitrust laws with most of those other apps you mentioned. Except with Media Player. They got slapped for that too. If they break antitrust laws with other bundling too, I'm sure they will get slapped on the wrist for those too. In due time.

[laca]

A) This is quibbling, but I noticed reference to "What is the OS then?" AFAIK, just plain Windows is technically not an OS, although the Windows Kernel is. Somebody would have to look it up to verify/debunk it, as this is off the top of my head.

B) Should Apple be sued for bundling Safari automatically? Hey, Mac OS X is all about integration, and Apple's own applications extremely so. I don't see the problem so long as you can easily get, install, and use another browser in Windows. Hey, if the Ubuntu devs made their own browser and automatically added it, would anybody complain? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I find this pointless and tedious.

The bundling is not the problem per se. The problem is that sometimes with bundling there are antitrust issues. It seems that the European Comission thinks that this was the case with IE. Apple does not have market dominance, so it cannot leverage it and that is exactly why it couldn't be sued.

[realpaladin]

Additional info on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abzAzMCoi3Rw

[dtugg]

Wow, so many strawmen. Only IE is relevant in this case. The question is: did Microsoft break antitrust laws with IE?

It wasn't a strawman, it was a a question. If bundling IE is illegal is bundling other apps illegal too? Should Microsoft ship Windows so it is useless out of the box.


The EC thinks it did. Hence the ruling. Simple as that. You don't have to like it.

Yeah, and it looks like Microsoft solved any bogus claims that the EU had. There is no way that they can reasonably justify saying that Microsoft is being anti-competitive with regards to IE if it isn't even included with Windows anymore. I'm sure they will try something though.

I do not think for moment there is someone who seriously considers that Microsoft broke antitrust laws with most of those other apps you mentioned.

Why not? What's the difference?

Except with Media Player. They got slapped for that too.

They made an insane ruling with that one too. And I hear the Windows versions sans Media Player are doing really well in Europe.

If they break antitrust laws with other bundling too, I'm sure they will get slapped on the wrist for those too. In due time.

I have no doubt that the EU will try to go after them for more money in the future. In the end, it will be consumers in the EU that end up paying rather than Microsoft. Do you think they just eat billions of dollars in fines?

[cyborg]

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

The interpretation of files is an application level concern - not an OS level concern.

Ditto for connecting to the Internet (or any other remote machine by any other mechanism - because there are others) and interpreting whatever data comes off it. (Whereas dealing with actually communicating with network devices on a low level is part of what an OS should do).

To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.

Since that is not what it says that's not what it is.

The basic technical argument is that it really isn't necessary that the HTML rendering engine of IE should provide functionality related to other core application level tasks when it really doesn't need to. Tying certain APIs together in a spaghetti of code is one of the anti-competitive practises Microsoft use in order to make it difficult to, say, drop the Gecko rendering engine in place of the Mosaic rendering engine (as is done in WINE to provide some sort of IE emulation).

That is the basic nature of the complaint.

ETA: And anybody arguing by analogy to other "bundling" practices of competitors fundamentally misses the point: MONOPOLIES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. It is purposefully unfair because of the recognition that monopolies can be harmful to things such as innovation and improvement that we want to come out of captialism via the mechanism of competition. If Microsoft could not use their market position such that the vendor-lock-in tricks surrounding IE were not effective then no-one would care. They can, so people do care.

[Ducky]

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

The interpretation of files is an application level concern - not an OS level concern.

Ditto for connecting to the Internet (or any other remote machine by any other mechanism - because there are others) and interpreting whatever data comes off it. (Whereas dealing with actually communicating with network devices on a low level is part of what an OS should do).



Since that is not what it says that's not what it is.

The basic technical argument is that it really isn't necessary that the HTML rendering engine of IE should provide functionality related to other core application level tasks when it really doesn't need to. Tying certain APIs together in a spaghetti of code is one of the anti-competitive practises Microsoft use in order to make it difficult to, say, drop the Gecko rendering engine in place of the Mosaic rendering engine (as is done in WINE to provide some sort of IE emulation).

That is the basic nature of the complaint.

ETA: And anybody arguing by analogy to other "bundling" practices of competitors fundamentally misses the point: MONOPOLIES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. It is purposefully unfair because of the recognition that monopolies can be harmful to things such as innovation and improvement that we want to come out of captialism via the mechanism of competition. If Microsoft could not use their market position such that the vendor-lock-in tricks surrounding IE were not effective then no-one would care. They can, so people do care.


QFT.

Particularly the part about what an OS is. End users often mistake an application as part of the OS itself.

[Mitchell314]

Windows is a bundle of stuff. So there is nothing wrong with it to recognize file extensions and to supply the appropriate program on start up. Hey, it takes all of two seconds with command prompt to change associations. Ftype and assoc, and there yeh go. Now if it's the kernel that's doing recognization and other fiddlings for the desktop, then I'll admit that isn't it's job. But I find that to be more of a software principle issue rather than an anti-competitive issue. I mean, why not go after MS for allowing programs using DirectX to have an extra priority level reserved for them? That's anti-competitive against programs using OpenGL, i.e just about anything made for being cross-platform. Why not (besides a little difference in purpose)? Because it's not a big deal, and it's MS saying "look, we know DirectX, and we know programs using DirectX are going to be processor hungry, so we'll allow a little bump on the CPU scheduling."

I'm sure Microsoft wasn't thinking "First, we'll conquer the market on browsers, then, the World!" Okay, maybe their marketing team was. But it's just common sense. If I were in their shoes, I'd think "I've got an OS+desktop+bundle. I've got a browser. Browsers are good for searching the web. I know! I'll incorporate IE into Windows."

Let's be honest. Most people would pick Internet Explorer if they were given the choice when booting up their new machine. Those of us minorities (but growing!) who know about Firefox's (or Safari's, or Opera's, or even Lynx's :D) superiority would have gone off and gotten the respective browser anyways. It's not moving market shares. It's just creating an inconvenience for everybody.

[cyborg]

Windows is a bundle of stuff.

Yes it is. Part of which is an OS. Part of which includes a browser. Not having these things intertwinned in an anti-competitive way benig the point of contention in the EU ruling.

I mean, why not go after MS for allowing programs using DirectX to have an extra priority level reserved for them?

It might be simply because no one has thought to do so. The browser issue is long outstanding and has particular interested parties.

I'm sure Microsoft wasn't thinking "First, we'll conquer the market on browsers, then, the World!" Okay, maybe their marketing team was. But it's just common sense. If I were in their shoes, I'd think "I've got an OS+desktop+bundle. I've got a browser. Browsers are good for searching the web. I know! I'll incorporate IE into Windows."

Again: that is not the point of contention. It is not simply a browser. It does not behave like a normal piece of shrinkwrap software - it has tenticles all over the place. You cannot simply extract the beast and expect Windows to be happy with it.

[funk de fino]

Microsoft were stupid and arrogant and got slapped. Get over it.

ETA - If it had been an EU company being dealt with by the US in the same way there would be a whole lot of backslappin going on round here IMO.

[Almo]

If there's any question of MS acting improperly, read this (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm). I've read most of it, and much of it makes me really mad. They really did act improperly.

One excerpt:

236. In February 1997 a Microsoft account representative told his counterpart at Gateway that Gateway's use of Navigator on its own corporate network was a serious issue at Microsoft. He added that Microsoft would not do any co-marketing and sales campaigns with Gateway if the firm appeared to be anything but pro-Microsoft. If Gateway would replace Navigator with Internet Explorer, Microsoft would compensate Gateway for its investment in Netscape's product. If Gateway refused, Microsoft might be compelled to audit Gateway's internal use of Microsoft products. Gateway was separately told by Microsoft representatives that its decision to ship Navigator with its PCs could affect its business relationship with Microsoft. Despite the pressure from Microsoft, Gateway refused to switch its internal use to Internet Explorer or to stop shipping Navigator with its PCs. Although Microsoft did not implement its more specific threats, Gateway has consistently paid higher prices for Windows than its competitors. Microsoft's actions not only corroborate the evidence of its interest in suppressing the usage of Navigator, they also demonstrate its ability to threaten recalcitrant customers without losing their business.

[dtugg]

Microsoft were stupid and arrogant and got slapped. Get over it.

If you ask me, the EU was stupid and arrogant and it backfired on them. Microsoft basically spit in their face and said, "fine we'll ship it without a browser." And there is no reasonable way that they could say Microsoft is being anti-competitive with regards to IE if it won't even come with Windows anymore.


ETA - If it had been an EU company being dealt with by the US in the same way there would be a whole lot of backslappin going on round here IMO.

No, if the DoJ tried to make an EU company distribute competitors' products, and it backfired on them, I would say the same thing.

[Mitchell314]

Yes it is. Part of which is an OS. Part of which includes a browser. Not having these things intertwinned in an anti-competitive way benig the point of contention in the EU ruling.
...
Again: that is not the point of contention. It is not simply a browser. It does not behave like a normal piece of shrinkwrap software - it has tenticles all over the place. You cannot simply extract the beast and expect Windows to be happy with it.

But then how is it anti-competitive? If MS tried to make it harder to use/install a third party browser, I could see the point of it being anti-competitive.

Here's how I see it:
Microrails is a company that builds passenger train cars (OS) and runs them. They also hand out other things as well for being a customer (The rest of Windows). One of those things is a briefcase (Internet Explorer). So they integrate into their works. Much of the service is done with their own brand of briefcases (IE-Win integration). It's weird, it's backwards, it's not how it's normally done, but it's just how they like to do things. You are allowed to take and use another type of briefcase. It can even be the default. Now, the service for the train won't use it. Is it their fault? Are they not supposed to use their briefcases because they don't integrate yours? Obviously they can't be expected to integrate all briefcases. But it's a service, and it's just how they operate. And how they operate is with some of their own products.

[dtugg]

If there's any question of MS acting improperly, read this (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm). I've read most of it, and much of it makes me really mad. They really did act improperly.

One excerpt:

There is no doubt that Microsoft has acted improperly in the past. But that was 12 years ago and Netscape doesn't even exist anymore, so I fail to see how it's relevant unless they are doing the same things today, which AFIK, they aren't.

[cyborg]

But then how is it anti-competitive? If MS tried to make it harder to use/install a third party browser, I could see the point of it being anti-competitive.

Well they have infact done such things in the past with hidden APIs.

Is it their fault?

Well yes actually since they specifically designed the briefcase to be weird and then used their train monopoly to force other briefcase designers out of business.

[funk de fino]

If you ask me, the EU was stupid and arrogant and it backfired on them. Microsoft basically spit in their face and said, "fine we'll ship it without a browser." And there is no reasonable way that they could say Microsoft is being anti-competitive with regards to IE if it won't even come with Windows anymore.

No, if the DoJ tried to make an EU company distribute competitors' products, and it backfired on them, I would say the same thing.

except it has not backfired.

[dtugg]

except it has not backfired.

It seems as though their goal was to force Microsoft to distribute competitors' products. That isn't happening at least not unless they want to get even more insane by saying Microsoft is being anti-competitive when IE isn't even included anymore. What will most likely happen is that the OEMs will just install IE anyway. Nothing is accomplished besides the EU looking stupid and possibly fines which will just be passed down to EU consumers.

[laca]

Here's how I see it:
Microrails is a company that builds passenger train cars (OS) and runs them. They also hand out other things as well for being a customer (The rest of Windows). One of those things is a briefcase (Internet Explorer). So they integrate into their works. Much of the service is done with their own brand of briefcases (IE-Win integration). It's weird, it's backwards, it's not how it's normally done, but it's just how they like to do things. You are allowed to take and use another type of briefcase. It can even be the default. Now, the service for the train won't use it. Is it their fault? Are they not supposed to use their briefcases because they don't integrate yours? Obviously they can't be expected to integrate all briefcases. But it's a service, and it's just how they operate. And how they operate is with some of their own products.

OK, now what if 9 out of 10 people who use briefcases also use Microrails cars and you are a briefcase manufacturer?

[funk de fino]

It seems as though their goal was to force Microsoft to distribute competitors' products. That isn't happening at least not unless they want to get even more insane by saying Microsoft is being anti-competitive when IE isn't even included anymore. What will most likely happen is that the OEMs will just install IE anyway. Nothing is accomplished besides the EU looking stupid and possibly fines which will just be passed down to EU consumers.

The goal was more choice for the consumer and breaking the Microsoft monopoly. This will happen. They had some solutions which Microsoft were not happy with so took their ball home.

The fines in the last however many years were about a $1billion. I think that is a backfiring on Microsoft not the EU. We always pay higher than the US for most things anyway not just software.

OEM's may give a choice of disks with different browsers and you choose one load it and then pay a sub for it.

[dtugg]

OK, now what if 9 out of 10 people who use briefcases also use Microrails cars and you are a briefcase manufacturer?

Then make a better briefcase and you'll eventually gain marketshare.

Just like Firefox has done, especially in Europe where it's at something like 35%

[dtugg]

The goal was more choice for the consumer and breaking the Microsoft monopoly. This will happen.

How exactly do I have less choice in the US where IE comes with Windows 7? I have five different browsers installed and it was no hassle at all.

As for breaking the Microsoft monopoly, fat chance. Not unless Microsoft decides it's too expensive to do business in Europe and packs up and leaves. That would likely hurt the EU just as much if not more than Microsoft. I would laugh and tell you guys to have fun with your overpriced Apple hardware and million different Linux distros.

They had some solutions which Microsoft were not happy with so took their ball home.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on distributing competitors' software either. I think Microsoft made the correct decision.


The fines in the last however many years were about a $1billion. I think that is a backfiring on Microsoft not the EU. We always pay higher than the US for most things anyway not just software.

Microsoft is in business to make money. Do you think they will just write off a billion dollars?


OEM's may give a choice of disks with different browsers and you choose one load it and then pay a sub for it.

I doubt it, but I guess we'll see. I predict that OEMs will install IE so nothing will have really changed. Except companies like Opera can't go cry to the EU over Microsoft's supposed unfair business practices.

[Mitchell314]

How exactly do I have less choice in the US where IE comes with Windows 7? I have five different browsers installed and it was no hassle at all.

Agreed.

As for breaking the Microsoft monopoly, fat chance. Not unless Microsoft decides it's too expensive to do business in Europe and packs up and leaves.

And give up a large market? Microsoft isn't going anywhere.


That would likely hurt the EU just as much if not more than Microsoft. I would laugh and tell you guys to have fun with your overpriced Apple hardware and million different Linux distros.

I don't know. I'd say both are better with costs factored in. Want something advanced? Go with a Mac. Want something simple, free, and does the job well? Go with Linux. Maybe Europe in the end would be better off after all...

[dtugg]

And give up a large market? Microsoft isn't going anywhere.

I agree. I just think that the only way Microsoft would lose it's market position is if it voluntarily left.


I don't know. I'd say both are better with costs factored in. Want something advanced? Go with a Mac. Want something simple, free, and does the job well? Go with Linux. Maybe Europe in the end would be better off after all...

I disagree. I think Windows (especially 7) is better than both. But that's entirely subjective. If Microsoft stop selling and supporting software in Europe, it would definitely cause all kinds of problems for individuals and businesses that rely on it though.

[roger]

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

The interpretation of files is an application level concern - not an OS level concern.

Ditto for connecting to the Internet (or any other remote machine by any other mechanism - because there are others) and interpreting whatever data comes off it. (Whereas dealing with actually communicating with network devices on a low level is part of what an OS should do).



Since that is not what it says that's not what it is.

The basic technical argument is that it really isn't necessary that the HTML rendering engine of IE should provide functionality related to other core application level tasks when it really doesn't need to. Tying certain APIs together in a spaghetti of code is one of the anti-competitive practises Microsoft use in order to make it difficult to, say, drop the Gecko rendering engine in place of the Mosaic rendering engine (as is done in WINE to provide some sort of IE emulation).

That is the basic nature of the complaint.

ETA: And anybody arguing by analogy to other "bundling" practices of competitors fundamentally misses the point: MONOPOLIES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. It is purposefully unfair because of the recognition that monopolies can be harmful to things such as innovation and improvement that we want to come out of captialism via the mechanism of competition. If Microsoft could not use their market position such that the vendor-lock-in tricks surrounding IE were not effective then no-one would care. They can, so people do care.
I'm sorry, but this is a nerd argument (no insult intended I'm Comp Sci and a nerd too).

The term "Operating System" has morphed from the days when it referred to the rather minimal system running on big iron. Your description of device abstraction, memory management, and tasking is the job of the kernel. Try to find a linux consumer desktop distro that limits itself to that job. You get several shells (bash, csh, etc) giving you the ls, pwd, etc., commands, you get an HTTP server, the X windowing system, a desktop or two (KDE, Gnome), probably a compiler or two, etc. We refer to those, collectively, as the operating system. Whatever we call it, it makes sense to bundle those together for a typical consumer desktop. You'd make a rather different bundle for a server, for an embedded computer in your car, etc. But you'd choose those bundles based on the needs of the typical user. In any case, no one (for reasonable values of "no one" :)) sells only a kernel these days. (I've done a lot of embedded work, so I'm well aware of the exceptions to that. Heck, the embedded stuff I did didn't even have a kernel, but I digress).

Anyway, I view your argument as semantic. There are technical reasons for deciding what does and doesn't go in a kernel (the kernel of a media player is going to support file formats, the kernel of a automobile's cruise control isn't). But there are marketing and usability reasons for what gets bundled in an Operating System, which these days means a kernel plus common sets of utilities.

VMS - more than a kernel
nextsep - more than a kernel
AmigaOS - more than a kernel (lots of multimedia and file handling built in)
SunOS - more than a kernel
Mac OS X - more than a kernel
BeOS - more than a kernel

I don't see why Microsoft should be restricted to only providing a kernel, or why anything beyond the kernel should be a competitor's IP.

[cyborg]

Try to find a linux consumer desktop distro that limits itself to that job.

A "linux consumer desktop distro" is not an "OS" then is it? It is a "distro" - which is the linux OS + software.

Now one can argue all they like about the short hand use of "OS" to mean anything in the ecosystem of a particular kernel but since this is about a legal issue I kinda think the semantic argument is important: first you must be clear what it is you are arguing about.

I don't see why Microsoft should be restricted to only providing a kernel, or why anything beyond the kernel should be a competitor's IP.

Neither do I - but then that is the strawman version of the argument.

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

Forcing Microsoft to behave better can only be in my interests.

[dtugg]

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

I agree with this. If they made it difficult or impossible for competitors' software to run on Windows, there would be a legitimate complaint. But they are not doing that, at least not anymore. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera and others run just fine on Windows, and arguable better than IE. And it takes but a few minutes to obtain and install any of these browsers.

[roger]

A "linux consumer desktop distro" is not an "OS" then is it? It is a "distro" - which is the linux OS + software.

Now one can argue all they like about the short hand use of "OS" to mean anything in the ecosystem of a particular kernel but since this is about a legal issue I kinda think the semantic argument is important: first you must be clear what it is you are arguing about.



Neither do I - but then that is the strawman version of the argument.

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

Forcing Microsoft to behave better can only be in my interests.Fine, let's call it the Microsoft Windows distro. What have we achieved?

Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to control what their distro contains? Red Hat gets to put in their Red Hat Network Update module, and not supply competitor's products. BeOS gets to provide a windowing system, file support, etc., without providing competing versions. COS (Cray) got to distribute Cray Fortran as part of the 'distro' (dumb Cray, not knowing that they shouldn't have called it an Operating System), but were not forced to supply competitor's compilers. How unfair is that? I wanted to (hypothetically) write a Cray Fortran compiler, but what chances did I have to sell it when you already got a really good one for free? Etc.

In short, I really don't think the courts should be designing software, whether it is in your interests or not. I dispute the 'in your interests' claim, where your=the typical user, not you the specific poster. Microsoft spends a heck of a lot of money figuring out what the typical user wants in a turn key system. I'm estatic that when my mother calls and asks me about her computer I don't have to investigate whether she has Apache or some other HTTP server installed. I know what the Microsoft 'distro' contains, and can pretty quickly get her going. You'll note all the various linux distros include scads of stuff you say shouldn't be bundled for exactly this reason - it's what desktop users want.


EDIT: I think we may perhaps be holding opposite ends of the same stick. I'm talking about the EU ruling itself, and I think you are talking about the Microsoft response to the EU ruling. I think the EU ruling was bad, but agree Microsoft's response was a bit of a butthead reaction.

EDIT2: Richard Stallman disagrees with you. "linux" (what Torvalds developed) was a kernel, then got bundled with a lot of FSF stuff to become an operating system. He wants the operating system to be called GNU/Linux, which of course nobody really does. But again, the Operating System is far more than the kernel. Everyone in the world calls the collection of kernel + utilities the Unix operating system. Source (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html). When every modern operating system uses the term differently than you, it's time to stop arguing, don't you think?

[Mitchell314]

Look, if you want to even the playing field, just install a (free) VM, get a Linux disk image, and now no browser is more rooted into the system than any other. :p

[laca]

Then make a better briefcase and you'll eventually gain marketshare.


You do that, I'm better off not going heads-up with a monopoly.


Just like Firefox has done, especially in Europe where it's at something like 35%

Yeah and that might just be because the EC is still making a fuss about Microsoft and its business practices.

[GreNME]

There is no doubt that Microsoft has acted improperly in the past. But that was 12 years ago and Netscape doesn't even exist anymore, so I fail to see how it's relevant unless they are doing the same things today, which AFIK, they aren't.

I don't quite agree with this. Microsoft went out of their way to keep the litigation going slow (or in circles) as much as possible during the time between their first charges and the end of their latest. It really is true that time was on their side, because the span of time it took to get any judgments against them really softened the blow to their company, and has softened any public distaste with their (former) activities.

That said, I really don't think it's necessary to have Microsoft perpetually paying the price of handicap compared to everyone else, but right now there's not much else that can be done to keep MS from going all Monopoly on the industry. And honestly, as long as Ballmer's at the helm-- who I feel is less ethical than Gates, even though Gates can be a ruthless bastard when he wants-- I don't mind Microsoft having to operate with what essentially is barely a pinky tied behind its back.

[laca]

To all who are missing the point by arguing what should be included in an OS/distro or whatever, I'll reiterate:

It is not about bundling per se. The whole case is about leveraging one's quasi-monopoly power to drive off competition. Period.

[TheJim]

I love the MS response. EU tells them to stop bundling they do so and the EU gets its panties in a bunch. Why would the EU expect any other action from MS? So now they don't have to worry about the bogus monopoly charges* and the vast majority of computers will still ship with IE from the OEMs who will almost all have it as the default if they even bother to offer a choice. I can't see why they would include additional browsers either it just increases there support costs and none of them are going to pay for Opera the dog the EU was backing.

*Yes I think its bogus as part of anti trust is that a monopoly has to hurt the consumer, who is a widely supported and free product hurting the consumer? Especially when windows has either gone down in price or stayed the same compared to inflation?

[dtugg]

Yeah and that might just be because the EC is still making a fuss about Microsoft and its business practices.

If Firefox's rise came after the EU's insane regulations, you might have a point. But as of now, IE, and IE only still ships with every version of Windows in Europe. Firefox's success is proof that it is possible to compete with Microsoft.

[roger]

To all who are missing the point by arguing what should be included in an OS/distro or whatever, I'll reiterate:

It is not about bundling per se. The whole case is about leveraging one's quasi-monopoly power to drive off competition. Period.We know what the case is about. We are arguing whether the decision is appropriate.

The first thing I do with a new Windows installation is launch IE and type "firefox.com" (okay second thing, first thing is turn off the annoying default sound scheme).

[funk de fino]

How exactly do I have less choice in the US where IE comes with Windows 7? I have five different browsers installed and it was no hassle at all.

As for breaking the Microsoft monopoly, fat chance. Not unless Microsoft decides it's too expensive to do business in Europe and packs up and leaves. That would likely hurt the EU just as much if not more than Microsoft. I would laugh and tell you guys to have fun with your overpriced Apple hardware and million different Linux distros.

Not quite getting the against the law thing are you? Microsoft have been pulled up in the US also where they were given a real pasting in court for unethical practices in the passt. I guess we should let them do what they want and unchecked eh?


Yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on distributing competitors' software either. I think Microsoft made the correct decision.

So do I


Microsoft is in business to make money. Do you think they will just write off a billion dollars?

Prove they are getting it back from me.


I doubt it, but I guess we'll see. I predict that OEMs will install IE so nothing will have really changed. Except companies like Opera can't go cry to the EU over Microsoft's supposed unfair business practices.

It seems to be someone else who is crying about the EU bullying the US Microsoft.

[dtugg]

Not quite getting the against the law thing are you? Microsoft have been pulled up in the US also where they were given a real pasting in court for unethical practices in the passt.

They were actually acting improperly back then and US regulators acted reasonably.

I guess we should let them do what they want and unchecked eh?

Nice stawman. Nobody is saying they should be able to do what they want unchecked. What I am saying is that EU regulators are irrational and their actions benefit nobody besides the pockets of the EU. I hear that forcing Microsoft to sell a version of Windows without Media Player was a great success. It sold all of a thousand or so copies.


Prove they are getting it back from me.

Of course I can't prove that. I don't have access to internal Microsoft documents. It is logical though. If you ran a company, would you just write off billions of dollars or would you recover it by passing it on to consumers?


It seems to be someone else who is crying about the EU bullying the US Microsoft.

I don't really care that much. I am mostly bored and looking for an argument. I do think it's funny that Microsoft basically told the EU to f off.

[Bobert]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.{/quote]
EXACTLY!
This is just absurd!
It seems people love to take shots at Microsoft.
Funny but within IE they allow me to choose for example which search engine I want to use so its not like Microsoft is trying to prevent me from choosing a browser other than theirs or a search engine other than theirs.

[quote]I also wonder which browsers the EU thinks Microsoft should have included as other options. If they were interested in being fair, it would have had to be all of them, rather than say just Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

And what about Paint? Force them to include every competitors' product also. And Windows Firewall too. Other companies make free firewalls. Why should Microsoft have an unfair advantage over them? And why should Microsoft's desktop gadgets be bundled with Windows over similar products by Google and Yahoo!? Something should be done about the unfair advantage Microsoft holds there.

Don't get me started on the free games that Microsoft includes in Windows. That is just totally unfair. If Microsoft wants to include free games with Windows, they should also distribute every free game in existence along with them.
Yup seems only fair!
Again always someone looking to take a shot at the bigdog.

[Rika]

Because try to seperate IE7 entirely from a system, you'll shortly note it's impossible, and you'll also note it's impossible to tie in any other browser to that degree.

In essence, MS is being told to stop attempting to dominate every market. So sad.

[Mitchell314]

There's always dual boot. :idea:

[jsiv]

If Firefox's rise came after the EU's insane regulations, you might have a point. But as of now, IE, and IE only still ships with every version of Windows in Europe. Firefox's success is proof that it is possible to compete with Microsoft.
Not really, because Firefox is a free and largely volunteer-based project that was born from the ruins of Netscape. This kind of legislation is really about protecting the market so that all companies have a fair shot at competing. Theoretically that means more choices and better deals for customers.

[cyborg]

Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to control what their distro contains? Red Hat ...snip etc...

I refer you to my previous comment on the nature of competition and monopoly laws being inherently unfair towards the monopoly - that is the point.

If you disagree with such laws that's a separate topic.

In short, I really don't think the courts should be designing software, whether it is in your interests or not.

They aren't - that's hyperbole.

You'll note all the various linux distros include scads of stuff you say shouldn't be bundled for exactly this reason

No, what I'm saying it's in my interested that Microsoft's lives aren't made easier because history shows they won't do a damn thing to improve anything otherwise. And that affects me whether I use their software or not by virtue of their market status.

But again, the Operating System is far more than the kernel. Everyone in the world calls the collection of kernel + utilities the Unix operating system. Source (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html). When every modern operating system uses the term differently than you, it's time to stop arguing, don't you think?

I don't have a problem with that - but I wouldn't call IE a core tool any more than I'd call KDE a core tool.

[laca]

If Firefox's rise came after the EU's insane regulations, you might have a point. But as of now, IE, and IE only still ships with every version of Windows in Europe. Firefox's success is proof that it is possible to compete with Microsoft.

I think Firefox's moderate success in Europe is attributable to the different mindset of european people, which is reflected to some degree in the EC's decisions.

[laca]

Nice stawman. Nobody is saying they should be able to do what they want unchecked. What I am saying is that EU regulators are irrational and their actions benefit nobody besides the pockets of the EU. I hear that forcing Microsoft to sell a version of Windows without Media Player was a great success. It sold all of a thousand or so copies.


Micorosft had years to comply with the EC's requests. They didn't. Now th EC is pissed off. How is that a surprise?

[dtugg]

Micorosft had years to comply with the EC's requests. They didn't. Now th EC is pissed off. How is that a surprise?

Where did I express any surprise that irrational, vindictive EU bureaucrats are pissed at Microsoft?

[laca]

Where did I express any surprise that irrational, vindictive EU bureaucrats are pissed at Microsoft?

Suppose you have a parking ticket. You have 30 days to pay it off, or they tow your car. You wait 3 months. One morning you wake up and your car is gone. And you go: "Those irrational, vindictive bastards!!". Yeah, that makes sense...

[dtugg]

Suppose you have a parking ticket. You have 30 days to pay it off, or they tow your car. You wait 3 months. One morning you wake up and your car is gone. And you go: "Those irrational, vindictive bastards!!". Yeah, that makes sense...

Here is a more apt analogy:

And irrationally and useless cop tries to tell me that I can't park at my usual parking space because it is supposedly unfair to other people. I just ignore him because there is no good reason that I shouldn't be able to park there. I am not surprised when I get a ticket which I eventually pay. But in the end, I am able to work it so I can park it in the same place anyway. So essentially, all that happens is that I am extorted some money. Nobody that I supposedly harmed by parking there is helped.



The EC should go back to regulating the size and shape of fruit.

[Rika]

Here is a more apt analogy:

And irrationally and useless cop tries to tell me that I can't park at my usual parking space because it is supposedly unfair to other people. I just ignore him because there is no good reason that I shouldn't be able to park there. I am not surprised when I get a ticket which I eventually pay. But in the end, I am able to work it so I can park it in the same place anyway. So essentially, all that happens is that I am extorted some money. Nobody that I supposedly harmed by parking there is helped.



The EC should go back to regulating the size and shape of fruit.

You know, you shouldn't write analogies when angry. As that missed the point.

[realpaladin]

Here is a more apt analogy:

And irrationally and useless cop tries to tell me that I can't park at my usual parking space because it is supposedly unfair to other people. I just ignore him because there is no good reason that I shouldn't be able to park there. I am not surprised when I get a ticket which I eventually pay. But in the end, I am able to work it so I can park it in the same place anyway. So essentially, all that happens is that I am extorted some money. Nobody that I supposedly harmed by parking there is helped.

So the next time the fine gets higher and the next time it still gets higher, and then you need a raise.

But because you become to expensive for your company, they rather hire a less skilled but way more inexpensive person that comes to work on his bike.

[Molinaro]

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

You are not the only computer scientist in the room. I've been programming since the early 80s.

I did not say THE prime function. I said one of the prime functions.

Yes the kernel and hardware abstraction layer is original prime function of an OS. However, since the introduction of graphical user interfaces, that is no longer the only prime function.

People rightly expect an OS to also provide a level of utility on top of the base functionality.

[Molinaro]

Again: that is not the point of contention. It is not simply a browser. It does not behave like a normal piece of shrinkwrap software - it has tenticles all over the place. You cannot simply extract the beast and expect Windows to be happy with it.

That's because Microsoft realized creating a seperate program to render your desktop was pointless when IE could do the job. Therefore, your desktop is a tightly integrated instance of IE.

But no, conspiracy theorists jump to the absurd world domination agenda instead of realizing that it was an efficient solution to a need.

[cyborg]

However, since the introduction of graphical user interfaces, that is no longer the only prime function.

Again: on a consumer level these things are all interchangeable because they're not really meaningful to them.

People will call "that beige box" "the hard drive". "Office" is "Windows". "Internet Explorer" is "The Internet" et al. I'm not going to start calling my PCs hard drives based on the ignorance of the consumer of the correct terminology, Office is not Windows and Internet Explorer is not the Internet (nor for that matter is the World Wide Web - not that anyone uses that anymore). Nor am I going to pretend that windowing systems are operating systems just because people don't differentiate with Windows because they don't really understand the difference.

People rightly expect an OS to also provide a level of utility on top of the base functionality.

No, I might expect software to be bundled to provide a level of utiltiy, but I would not call it "the OS".

That's because Microsoft realized creating a seperate program to render your desktop was pointless when IE could do the job. Therefore, your desktop is a tightly integrated instance of IE.

That's not really the issue - I don't think anyone's used Active Desktop since it died about ten years ago.

But no, conspiracy theorists jump to the absurd world domination agenda instead of realizing that it was an efficient solution to a need.

There is nothing CT about Microsoft's desire for world domination since:

1) They have it for several markets
2) It's prudent from a business perspective to keep it
3) They are not shy about leveraging their OS and Office dominance to try and attain dominance in other markets

There's no need for a conspiracy theory since it's simply the Microsoft business model.

[Molinaro]

Again: on a consumer level these things are all interchangeable because they're not really meaningful to them.

People will call "that beige box" "the hard drive". "Office" is "Windows". "Internet Explorer" is "The Internet" et al. I'm not going to start calling my PCs hard drives based on the ignorance of the consumer of the correct terminology, Office is not Windows and Internet Explorer is not the Internet (nor for that matter is the World Wide Web - not that anyone uses that anymore). Nor am I going to pretend that windowing systems are operating systems just because people don't differentiate with Windows because they don't really understand the difference.



No, I might expect software to be bundled to provide a level of utiltiy, but I would not call it "the OS".



That's not really the issue - I don't think anyone's used Active Desktop since it died about ten years ago.



There is nothing CT about Microsoft's desire for world domination since:

1) They have it for several markets
2) It's prudent from a business perspective to keep it
3) They are not shy about leveraging their OS and Office dominance to try and attain dominance in other markets

There's no need for a conspiracy theory since it's simply the Microsoft business model.

I have to say that you are completely wrong. The definition of OS is not some biblical statement carved in stone. You may want to drop anchor and insist on restricting it to the original functionality provided by OS's, but reality has moved on.

And I'm not talking about Active Desktop. Your desktop is an instance of IE, regardless of having Active Desktop on or off.

[Mitchell314]

You are not the only computer scientist in the room. I've been programming since the early 80s.

I did not say THE prime function. I said one of the prime functions.

Yes the kernel and hardware abstraction layer is original prime function of an OS. However, since the introduction of graphical user interfaces, that is no longer the only prime function.

People rightly expect an OS to also provide a level of utility on top of the base functionality.

The GUI stuff is handled by the windows server and the desktop. Those are (supposed to be) built on top of the OS, not into it.

[Molinaro]

The GUI stuff is handled by the windows server and the desktop. Those are (supposed to be) built on top of the OS, not into it.

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.

[Mitchell314]

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.

I'm talking issues of principle. Microsoft can build Windows however they want. However, it doesn't give them exemption from a "You put the batteries in backwards."

[realpaladin]

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.

Yep. And the EU gets to decide what standards and methods they accept!

[cyborg]

The definition of OS is not some biblical statement carved in stone. You may want to drop anchor and insist on restricting it to the original functionality provided by OS's, but reality has moved on.

Er no. Even if I took the ancient Unics system then what I'd say would still apply. There isn't really anything fundamental about OS design that has moved on in this space that would justify such a change in semantics - your arguments are based on marketing nonsense.

There's been nothing paradigm changing in the OS or windowing space for many, many years that could possibly justify this argument.

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.

No it really isn't - laws apply to software developers just as well as producers of more concrete items.

For example: in the US where software patents apply you certainly can't just go around implementing your product however you want because you may infringe on a patent by doing so. Is this absurd? You may think so but this is the case anyway.

[Molinaro]

No it really isn't - laws apply to software developers just as well as producers of more concrete items.

For example: in the US where software patents apply you certainly can't just go around implementing your product however you want because you may infringe on a patent by doing so. Is this absurd? You may think so but this is the case anyway.

Try taking my comment in the context of what I was replying to, and you will see that what you just said has nothing to do with my comment.

Saying that the GUI is suposed to be built on top of the OS and not into it is a baseless assertion. That is what I was replying to.

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.

[Wudang]

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.

Well I'm glad you told me. I'll just chuck away all those SOX-compliance forms, disability compliance checklists, etc and just tell them some random wingnut on the internet told me they were patently absurd.

[realpaladin]

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.

A producer of power-sockets could decide to make his out of 100% pure gold without any shielding to all other metal parts.

Or he could make them wholly out of wood.

So, agreed, 100% his own decision.

But then he would not pass the laws of the market he wants to participate in and he can not sell those variants of his products.

The courts are just there to judge the product against the laws pertaining to that market.

If the product does not comply, there are but two choices;

- Modify the product.

- Stay out of the market.

[Wudang]

Try taking my comment in the context of what I was replying to, and you will see that what you just said has nothing to do with my comment.

Saying that the GUI is suposed to be built on top of the OS and not into it is a baseless assertion. That is what I was replying to.

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.

And if that argument had been allowed some years back when the consent decree was laid on IBM then we would not have the computer industry we do today. IBM made very similar arguments about how it designed its storage controllers and channel paths which kept the independent equipment manufacturers locked out.

[jsiv]

Your desktop is an instance of IE, regardless of having Active Desktop on or off.
It is not. All the windowing and GUI elements are handled by the window manager/user in the kernel, while the actual desktop features like the file browser, icons, start menu, task bar, etc are handled by Windows Explorer.

Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are separate programs that do very different things. It is true that in older versions of Windows (XP and earlier) WE could morph into IE through the magic of COM (in the same fashion Firefox can host IE in a tab), but not even that is possible anymore. As for Active Desktop, it doesn't even exist anymore.

A few parts of Windows like the help system do use IE to render web content, but that doesn't make it IE anymore than Firefox is WE because its open/save file dialog is actually an embedded WE window.

[Molinaro]

You guys are twising my comments around to aply in ways that are childishly silly, in an effort to maintain your position.

My comment was directly at a particular quote with respect to how a particular system is implemented in code. It is a design decision and not a compliance issue.

[Molinaro]

And if that argument had been allowed some years back when the consent decree was laid on IBM then we would not have the computer industry we do today. IBM made very similar arguments about how it designed its storage controllers and channel paths which kept the independent equipment manufacturers locked out.

Nobody is locked out because Microsoft decided to make IE the program that serves up the desktop.

You can still install any other browser and use it to browse the internet.

What you can't do, is remove it completely and have another browser serve up the desktop. However, since when is it wrong to not allow other developers to replace core functionality of the OS? Because as implemented by Microsoft, the desktop is a core part of it's OS.

[Molinaro]

It is not. All the windowing and GUI elements are handled by the window manager/user in the kernel, while the actual desktop features like the file browser, icons, start menu, task bar, etc are handled by Windows Explorer.

Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are separate programs that do very different things. It is true that in older versions of Windows (XP and earlier) WE could morph into IE through the magic of COM (in the same fashion Firefox can host IE in a tab), but not even that is possible anymore. As for Active Desktop, it doesn't even exist anymore.

A few parts of Windows like the help system do use IE to render web content, but that doesn't make it IE anymore than Firefox is WE because its open/save file dialog is actually an embedded WE window.

Bolded part is 100% correct. Strange that I was seeing Windows Explorer in my head all through these posts, but I was typing IE. Sorry for the error.

[realpaladin]

You guys are twising my comments around to aply in ways that are childishly silly, in an effort to maintain your position.

My comment was directly at a particular quote with respect to how a particular system is implemented in code. It is a design decision and not a compliance issue.

I don't care if they got it there by divination.

You started out by whining that the courts had no place in determining how MS should distribute Windows.

So, all the courts have done is make it clear how Windows *would* comply to the rules.

If MS says, well, we drop the iexplore.exe program but leave all the trident rendering stuff in, that would be an option.

The court clearly states it is the browser (the method by which people click and 'hey presto, Google appears' ;) ) that is at stake. Not the IE functionality.

[realpaladin]

Nobody is locked out because Microsoft decided to make IE the program that serves up the desktop.

You can still install any other browser and use it to browse the internet.

What you can't do, is remove it completely and have another browser serve up the desktop. However, since when is it wrong to not allow other developers to replace core functionality of the OS? Because as implemented by Microsoft, the desktop is a core part of it's OS.

Read the verdict.

Nowhere does it say that IE functionality has to be removed.

It states that the browser has to be removed. The interface part of it.

[cyborg]

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.

That is your opinion - others disagree for some of the reasons outlined above: the acknowledgement of the detremental effects of monopolies, protection of IP, application of audit standards etc...

Not that it is strictly true - the windows kernel is quite well designed by all accounts. It's everything atop of it that it either hobbled by backwards compatability concerns or by marketing imposed design choices et al. (With Microsoft occassionally managing to fix some of these issues right before introducing a whole load more - but that is another thread).

[laca]

Update: there will be a browser in the EU version of Windows afterall.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/352
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/eu-msft/docs/07-24-09Commitment.doc

[Mitchell314]

Update: there will be a browser in the EU version of Windows afterall.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/352
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/eu-msft/docs/07-24-09Commitment.doc

Great. So they get to keep the browser that helps them search for another browser.


... If they know what's good for them. :p

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I personally find the EU ruling pretty bizarre and for the same reasons stated by others. However, I think the reason Microsoft gets away with bundling all those other programs is because they're pretty basic versions for their genre.

Paint is a basic image manipulation program, Wordpad is a basic word processor, etc...

However, Internet Explorer is a full-featured web browser.

I think Microsoft could save themselves a lot of grief by bundling a basic web browser and offer the full-blown Internet Explorer through Microsoft Update.

[Mitchell314]

I personally find the EU ruling pretty bizarre and for the same reasons stated by others. However, I think the reason Microsoft gets away with bundling all those other programs is because they're pretty basic versions for their genre.

Paint is a basic image manipulation program, Wordpad is a basic word processor, etc...

However, Internet Explorer is a full-featured web browser.

I think Microsoft could save themselves a lot of grief by bundling a basic web browser and offer the full-blown Internet Explorer through Microsoft Update.

I think the problem is that IE is bundled with the OS for Windows, not just Windows. If the EU was charging the latter, then they really need to meet that clue bat. But their issue is with IE being built in to the system itself. Again, I think Microsoft should be allowed to do it if they want, even though it goes against some principles of design. I think the "it's a monopoly" argument would work if all machines ran Windows and couldn't run anything else. But that's false; there are free OSs that are arguably better, and there's nothing stopping anybody from installing and using them. Look Ma, no bundled IE.