So does this mean Apple should no longer include Safari in its OS? If Opera had it so bad it would have gone the route of Netscape. Opera is still around so it has nothing to complain about.

Honestly, I think it was a good strike from Opera, Mozilla and Google. Something like an interactive program who lets users choose the browser that fits his/her needs: In this case, I think Chrome would win. Second Firefox and third Opera in a Windows OS.
@ all people who say Opera sucks:
That's your opinion, that may not be the reality. Opera is a very good browser, in my opinion. If it had add-ons (like Firefox, that I'm using at the moment), it would certainly be the most used browser.
@ blabbery
Dude calm down!!! Same thing before - THAT'S YOUR OPINION!!! Of course, Microsoft may have broken the law, I know. Did you read the article?! Things are getting better by now (IE can be uninstalled by the time of Windows 7, according to the article).

Now about the JavaScript engines and benchmarkings...I don't think it's SO important. A thing I think it would be a priority is tweaking the existing browser and/or add more features!!
The average Joe just wants to do basic stuff like surfing around things like Myspace...Youtube...And the majority still uses IE 6, which is wrong. In my opinion Microsoft should let the already existing companies do the work on the browsing. Something like some UNIX distros do. Take for example DLS (Damn Small Linux), it's just a basic OS, with more apps! I mean, Microsoft should concentrate on the OS, and leave the Media Players, Browsers, Image editors/viewers do their work! I'm not saying that they should quit, but to let the user to the choice. It would let the market grow, and get the competition flowing.

Here's a tangent that might be more fun than listening to Blubbering's whining.

Let's speculate as to the sock puppet's alternative identities.

I am a long-time Opera user (even paid for it twice back when it was shareware), and despite a couple of times when I briefly grew disenchanted (mainly when they started adding unnecessary crap like Widgets and Speed Dial), it is today the ONLY browser I use, on three diferent Windows operating systems. BUT, I think they're going too far to insist on the removal of IE from Windows... they need to just let that grievance go and stay focused on putting out better and more customizable versions of Opera without the incredibly long and drawn-out Alpha and Beta cycles. (Hint: Opera Turbo is yet another recent distraction and waste of energy. Drop it, guys.)

CT2001:

Let me guess, you are on a broadband connection, and you think the universe revolves around you? Did it ever occur to you that most of the world is not on broadband, and that Opera Turbo actually helps a lot if you aren't? Did it also occur to you that Opera actually has a strong market presence in such markets already, and Opera Turbo can help them grow even more there?

As for the rest of your comment, geez. Grievance? Microsoft is breaking the law to this day, which both Mozilla and Google agree on because they joined the complaint as well.

It doesn't help to put out better versions (Opera has always been better than IE) if Microsoft illegally prevents competition.

So lets say I.E. is banned from the Microsoft OS. How would I download Opera?

Uh, Linux has had packet managers for ages. It's easy to just fire it up and download whatever you need. Also, OEMs would preinstall a browser anyway, which would cover 99% of the people in the world.

> So lets say I.E. is banned from the Microsoft OS. How would I download Opera?

Why is this so inconceivable to so many people? Don't you think some programmer at Microsoft could find a solution to this? If not, I'll find a solution for them for free.

Your angst ridden post is moot.

They can do it now, if they choose.

So stop whining.

I've said before that you can draw parallels to car sales, even though some argue it can't be used to draw such comparisons. Yes it can. What if tire sellers complained that it's unfair that Ford and GM sell cars with tires pre-installed? There is no monopoly argument in either case. You can buy Apple or download Linux, so there's no "monopoly" of Windows. Anyone who thinks that is dilusional.

The car analogy doesn't work.
Not at all.
Ford do not make tyres.
Ford do not fit their own tyres to their new cars.
Therefore Ford cannot shut out the majority of the competition right from the start of ownership in the same way as Microsoft can with IE in Windows.

But Ford can select one tire maker and deal with no others and they have the choice to make their own tires....so how's that any different? Shouldn't Ford HAVE TO select tires from EVERY tire maker for their new cars? Also, if you can explain to me how Microsoft "shuts out" other browsers, I'm willing to listen. Last time I checked, installation of other browsers was allowed on Windows systems.

# Shouldn't Ford HAVE TO select tires from
# EVERY tire maker for their new cars?

No, as Ford is not in a dominant position the way Microsoft is, and has not abused its non-existent dominant position to undermine competition

# Also, if you can explain to me how Microsoft "shuts
# out" other browsers

It undermines competition by bundling IE with its dominant Windows operating system. In addition to merely bundling, Microsoft has actively tried to cause lock-in through use of proprietary technologies like ActiveX.

In any case, it is illegal to ruin a market using bundling. There was a browser market before Microsoft runied it.

So, because Microsoft is successful and people CHOOSE their product over other alternatives, Microsoft should be penalized? yeah, that makes sense. I believe Microsoft began bundling IE in 1995 - what "browser market" are you referring to? Netscape? If Opera had cut a deal with Microsoft to have their browser as the default in Windows instead of IE, do you think Tetzchner would still be whining? would that be illegal?

This statement from the interview sums it up, "In any case, you need some kind of way to select browsers, to download browsers.".....Why? does that hold true for every program provided in the OS (i.e. text editors, image editors, etc...)? If not, why not? Does the same standard hold for all OS makers? If not, why not? If it's because they don't have dominant market share, what's the threshold for determining "dominant" market share? As soon as they cross that threshold should all other browser makers whine? What about browsers that are excluded? or does this just apply to the "big ones"?

Microsoft provides a way "to select browsers, to download browsers" - it's called Internet Explorer.

jspratjr:

# So, because Microsoft is successful and
# people CHOOSE their product over other
# alternatives, Microsoft should be penalized?

No. That's a stupid straw man. You clearly haven't paid attention.

Microsoft should be penalized for breaking the law. They broke the law by using bundling with a dominant product to ruin a different market. Even today, many sites REQUIRE IE to work at all.

# I believe Microsoft began bundling IE in 1995
# - what "browser market" are you referring to?

Opera existed in 1995. So did Netscape.

# If Opera had cut a deal with Microsoft to have
# their browser as the default in Windows instead
# of IE, do you think Tetzchner would still be
# whining? would that be illegal?

I don't know if that would be illegal. It wouldn't be Microsoft product that was bundled.

# does that hold true for every program provided
# in the OS (i.e. text editors, image editors,
# etc...)?

Read the discussion. This has been dealt with over and over. This holds true if it can be shown that Microsoft has broken the law. However, Notepad and Paint output files that any other application can read, unlike IE which is stuffed with proprietary technologies like ActiveX, causing lock-in.

# Does the same standard hold for all OS makers?

Obviously. But no one else is dominant, while Microsoft is.

# If it's because they don't have dominant market
# share, what's the threshold for determining
# "dominant" market share?

That's defined by the law. 70% or something like that.

# As soon as they cross that threshold should
# all other browser makers whine?

Not necessarily. Not if they aren't breaking the law.

Why are you whining about Opera's complaint (which is now backed by Google and Mozilla as well)? Do you not think breaking the law should have consequences? Or is it just Microsoft which should be able to break the law and get away with it?

# Microsoft provides a way "to select browsers,
# to download browsers" - it's called Internet
# Explorer.

No, that clearly isn't good enough.

"However, Notepad and Paint output files that any other application can read, unlike IE which is stuffed with proprietary technologies like ActiveX, causing lock-in."...lol.....please, PLEASE remove the blinders!! Your comments are so slanted and out of line with reality it's ridiculous. I'm done - you MUST work for Opera and/or are related to Tetzchner in some way. There's no other reason you'd sound like a parrot with one line in your repertoire, "they broke the law".

p.s. Opera wasn't publicly available until 1996...and I believe they're up to 11 users now - not bad in 13 years...but hey, it's all Microsoft's fault right?

"There was a browser market before MS ruined it?"

Really? Oh yeah, there was one other dominant browser...

If you can't figure out that there are alternatives, of which you are free to download now, MS omitting IE won't help you.

The PC is our standard, it belongs to the industry, not Microsoft, but to all the retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of interchangeable parts and programs for the PC standard.

We want the web browser to be a modular component interchangeable with fully compatible browsers from alternate vendors, because it is better for the retailers, the users, and the health of the industry. The only voices against it are Microsoft and it's shills, but they would benefit too, just not as much as they would with more monopoly control over our standard.

And you have the right, and are able, to install whatever windows-based browser you want - just as Microsoft has the right to put whatever browser they want in THEIR product and not promote competing products. Why is that so hard to understand?

I know Blabby, they "broke the law"

jspratjr: Why did you ask a question when you already knew the answer?

You abuse something, it gets taken away. You break the law, it has consequences. Why do you think Microsoft should be above the law?

So following the prevailing logic here, automobiles should not come bundled with proprietary engines in order to get on the super highway?

No, that's just your pathetically bad logic, and your ignorance.

No car manufacturers have a dominant position like Microsoft does.

Yeah? if I really put any credence in what *you* thought, I'd invest a few more seconds on countering your idiotic blather. Fortunately, Tool's been doing a damned fine job of wiping up the room with your sorry ass.

And in BOTH industries you have choices. Grow up and quit whining and blaming others and assume responsibility for making them yourself.

You have very viable choices as you yourself keep telling us. Quit playing the victim.

Your real gripe isn't that choice is not possible, it certainloy is! Your whine is that others haven't reflected the same preferences that YOU happen to prefer.

I don't understand what the big deal is about MSIE being part of a Microsofts own OS, what other included component of an OS are people going to complain about next? If these other companies would build a superior product, people will use it. If these other companies don't like it, have them create their own OS.

I can't believe you guys waste all this time arguing about free browsers. Get a life people.

People who either believe Microsoft has done no wrong or think Microsoft shouldn't be punished for breaking the law are arguing with people who think the law actually matters, and that competition is important.

Lots of people have strong opinions even though they don't even know the basic facts of the matter, so they resort to mindless Opera bashing (and conveniently ignore the fact that both Mozilla and Google have joined the complaint as well).

@Blabby:

You accuse me of ignoring *facts* all while completely ignoring the fact that no decision has been made.

You claim completely unrelated cases are precedence.

You claim supposition as fact.

How can *anyone* argue with someone who is completely blind to reality and refuses to base any of his arguments or points in anything *but* his own fantasies and delusions?

Right. You can't. You're the oft-discussed idiot who's dragged me down to your level and beaten me with experience. I bow to your trolling skills, while laughing at your complete ignorance.

It's been fun. Peace, out.

The tool is playing semantics to get away from the real issue. He knows that Microsoft will almost certainly be convicted.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

ummm hey blabbery, you see that brightness shining through your basement window, that[s called the sun, go outside and get some

Why hello there, internet tough guy. Couldn't come up with any valid counter arguments, eh?

This guy needs to worry about Firefox not Microsoft. Opera WAS once the fastest of browsers but that hasn't been the case for a while until the recent beta builds of Opera 10 which is much faster but still a step slower than Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 beta.

Opera's UI is absolutely atrocious. If ever a company could completely obliterate a UI, Opera is second to none.

Listen numb-nuts, you can't be taken seriously if you're asking what's wrong with Opera's UI? I think it is you who are definitely joking if you're asking that question. It wasn't the benchmarks that made me say Opera has been defeated in the speed department as of late, it was my own personal use of it which was later supported by several benchmarks in the past and not all are based on Java.

Be it as it may, there is a reason why Opera to this day still has only a pathetic -1% market share... LOL! And it has NOTHING to do with marketing but everything to do with the browser it's self.

# it was my own personal use of it which
# was later supported by several benchmarks
# in the past and not all are based on Java.

LOL, the moron doesn't even know the difference between Java and JavaScript, and yet he starts shouting about UI, perofrmance and market share as if he has anything factual to contribute with :D

http://gs.statcounter.co...y-20080701-20090316-bar

Also, tests lately actually show that Opera is fast indeed.

I personally think it's a COMPLETE lack of marketing that's stopped them getting anywhere.

I agree with skinner. Opera is probably the best browser, but that doesnt help much these days when theres no advertising to go along with it.

ie had NO MARKETING and NO DEVELOPMENT FOR 6 YEARS. as the Yanks say, 'do the math'.

Paul Skinner, Daddy_Spank: Opera has done a lot of marketing, from the Bork version to the million users swim, to advertising on Times Square, to online ads, etc. I know some Opera guy was claimed to say that they hadn't, but he was either misquoted or completely ignorant, because Opera has done a lot of advertising.

But whether Opera has done advertising or not (which they have) is irrelevant to whether MS broke the law or not.

bob2: If you are saying that Opera has had no development for 6 years, you are just retarded.

The IE removal is what I call totally "off-topic". Microsoft still does not understand how law enforcement in Europe works. The authority investigates, statements of interested parties are made, experts are heard, the authority decides, market player comply with exactly what they were ordered to.

Antitrust is not a berber market. If you are asked to do x, they don't care if you do r and s. The whole investigation is retroactive. No one asks you to do something else. No one asks Microsoft to bully the Commission or sent anti-institutional communication spin. No one has remorse with a party that claims it does not understand the law. General public opinion is also irrelevant for antitrust enforcement. Antitrust is like a court. Only the mafia sets the judge under pressure, threatenes his family and children and only a fool shouts at the court. Microsoft's involvement in antitrust clearly shows that the company is totally unaware on how to deal with European authorities. And no one gives anything for a unilateral ceasefire for mafia killings and would thus stop the prosecution of organized crime. It is simply no virtue to end abuse.

I believe Opera, Google and Mozilla have a very good case here. If there's perfect competition between the browsers, then all have access to the same distribution channels and can compete on equal grounds. Which is important, because browsers makers see themselves competing over large sums of capital.

This case would have been taken to the court by somebody else if Opera hadn't done it. In 2009 we're talking 100 millions of dollars, in a few years it will be billions at stake. The others wouldn't allow Microsoft to maintain an unfair position in this market environment if they can stop it. This lawsuit establishes who's right, and therefor is important no matter how it ends.

Like PC_Tool I dumped Netscape when it became a bloated, slow, stinking pile that tried to do everything.

For arguments sake, Tell me Blabbery, if we concede your point that MS broke the law, what do you think should be the remedy?

palweb, please don't ask Blabbery to think, he doesn't have time - he's busy playing that "Microsoft broke the law" record.

jspratj, this is about rent seeking, or capitalizing on something that is not pure market competition (it's actually a problem for capitalist thinkers, because it distorts the market). It's legal in some cases, but in the case of Microsoft and bundling, it may not be. Therefore it should be tried in a court. If Microsoft is within the law then fine, if not then it's good that Microsoft has to follow the same rules of the game as everyone else. Even capitalist would find that important.

@jspratjr:

Exactly.

"Concede a law has been broken"? Why? No such thing has been decided. He's arguing from somewhere off in fantasy land. Amusing as it is, it's completely irrelevant to the entire topic which deals with this thing we like to call "reality". Something blabby doesn't seem to be able to comprehend.

yeay31 - I understand the legal aspects of the problem, I'm talking common sense (something the legal system severely lacks at times - at least in the U.S. anyway). You could tell me until you're blue in the face why Microsoft should have to include competitor products in their own product (it's not like consumers don't already have choices (i.e. the OS itself)) but the premise is people are so stupid, they can't figure out they actually have a choice. I'm sorry but I give my fellow humans a little more credit than that. I wish Microsoft would just take IE out of Windows altogether and let people figure out how to get on the Internet - but of course, then the EC would whine about the lack of choice.

jspratjr: "Microsoft broke the law record"?

Funny.

Except Microsoft DID break the law. They were convicted in the US and in the EU. Now there's a new near-identical case where the EU states that Microsoft has broken the law.

Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without any consequences?

PC_Tool is being a tool again:

# "Concede a law has been broken"? Why? No such thing has been
# decided. He's arguing from somewhere off in fantasy land.

Actually, it has already been decided in both the US and EU. Remember the EU decision from 2004? It set the precedent for this case. Furthermore, as you know but dishonestly ignore, this is what the EC has stated:

"The European Commission can confirm that it has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft on 15th January 2009. The SO outlines the Commission’s preliminary view that Microsoft’s tying of its web browser Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system Windows infringes the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82)."

Notice that? In your fairy tale world, Microsoft is innocent. But they have been convicted of the exact same thing before.

Now get a clue and stop being a moron.

Jackass.

We're talking about the current issue with IE, moron.

A statement of Objection is not a conviction.

Microsoft has *NEVER* been convicted of breaking anti-trust laws regarding IE in the EU/EC, and the US issue was over a *decade* ago and is ended.

Stop being such a retarded monkey and do some fraking research before posting your inane drivel in the future.

# A statement of Objection is not a conviction.

However, this case is near-identical to other cases that have set a precedent. You are just clinging to the hope that they won't be convicted, but they will.

# Microsoft has *NEVER* been convicted of
# breaking anti-trust laws regarding IE in
# the EU/EC, and the US issue was over a
# *decade* ago and is ended.

That the US case was a decade ago is irrelevant.

In the EU, Microsoft has been convicted of the exact same practices with other products.

You can keep being a moron who pretends that Microsoft isn't guilty, but they were found guilty before on the same grounds.

Like PC_Tool I dumped Netscape when it became a bloated, slow, stinking pile that tried to do everything.

For arguments sake, tell me Blabbery, if we concede your point that MS broke the law, what do you think should be the remedy?

If you concede MY point? I'm not the one claiming that Microsoft broke the law. THE EUROPEAN AUTHORITIES are.

Wow. Everytime someone from Opera has something to say, it always seems to come out whiny. It's not MSFT's fault they are doing so poorly. It has more to do with Opera being shoddy software. One cannot blame a competitors product for their own failure when that failure comes from within. Opera sucks, plain and simple.

Opera is doing "poorly"? Really? Desktop revenue grew by more than 100% last quarter, and the user base has doubled in a couple of years.

On mobile phones, Opera is the dominant browser.

New revenue and profit records all the time and tens of millions of users.

Failure? Opera sucks?

Spoken like a true ignorant fool.

Microsoft broke the law. Why should they be able to break the law and get away with it?

*laughing my fraking a** off*

Yes, poorly.

Does "less than 10% market share" mean anything to you, genius?

Opera was initially release over 12 years ago and has less than 10% of the market.

Compare that to Firefox, who in less than 5 years grabbed over 20% of the market.

I was wrong below...*dense* doesn't even begin to describe the depths of your ignorance.

PC_Tool: You are being a tool again.

A business is there to make money. Opera is making money. Not only that, but the growth is massive, which you conveniently ignored just like you willfully ignore all other facts because of your idiocy.

Less than 10% market share in the desktop market is still a big deal. Opera dominates the mobile market, which you also conveniently ignored.

Firefox is a special case, as Mozilla's Asa Dotzler explains:

"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."

Yeah, but doubling 10 dollars is still only 20 dollars in revenue

Where are you guys getting this 10% market share crap from? You must be talking about the mobile market because Opera on the desktop still has not even achieved a 1% market share. Sorry but no matter how you look at it, if Opera hasn't managed to even eek out 1% of the desktop market share by now, the company should just fold and close shop. Opera sucks, plain and simple.

FixXxeR: Opera has nearly 40 million desktop users.

internetworld7: Opera does not have less than 1%. You are basing that on useless stats. Here's an example of something contradicting the Net Applications nonsense (Net Applications has been caught editing their stats):

http://gs.statcounter.co...y-20080701-20090316-bar

Opera should close shop? Desktop revenue alone increased more than 100% last quarter. The company is profitable. All business areas are growing like mad.

You commies should stop trying to tell people how to run their companies, LOL.

You're going to have to try harder. Opera has been in business for over 12 years and to date they STILL have less than a 1% desktop market share... LOL

OPERA = EPIC FAIL Plain and simple fanboy.

LOL!

Shutup and go play with Opera.

IE doesn't present a problem for the rest of us. And I certainly do not prefer it as a primary browser.

Face the reality that Opera is NOT the browser of choice as the primary alternative to IE.

But you are certainly free to use it if you like. And THAT fact renders your whine, and your spam, simply noise.

Von Tetzchner's financial analysis comparison is incorrectly applied. In fact, the reason the markets are where they are is because there was TOO MUCH regulation. Banks were forced to lend to subprime lenders, which defaulted on their loans.

Off from trolling - -

I.E is the quarterback for Windows. The refs regulate the rules of the game, not if the quarterback is necessary. I wonder if M$ stopped cc'ing Bill this weekend.

"I.E is the quarterback for Windows. The refs regulate the rules of the game, not if the quarterback is necessary."

False.

Microsoft used two quarterbacks, clearly against the rules.

Not false, Windows OS isn't the second QB, its the coach.

The point is that Microsoft broke the rules of the game (they broke the law).

Are you dense?

They "broke the law" in the 90's in the US. According to the EC, they "broke the law" in 2004.

There is *nothing* on the books right now but a "Statement of Objection", which implies *nothing*, and certainly does not mean any law has been broken as it relates to this article, thread, or browsers in general.

Get a clue.

Better yet, stop this absurd urge of yours to post about something you are obviously *incredibly* clueless about.

You need to stop being a tool. Microsoft broke the law in 2004. Now the EC has found that they are quite clearly breaking the law again.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

"Now the EC has found that they are quite clearly breaking the law again."

Ah...there you go again.

No, they haven't found anything. Yet. You honestly believe that the US trial and the 2004 EC decision is relevant today?

Ok...let's pretend they are. That would imply their findings and punishments are also relevant, correct? The EU might demand IE be removed from the Windows -N version.

How well did that one sell again?

Futility doesn't even *begin* to describe this.

So..if and when there *is* a finding, rather than a statement of objections, it will be completely and totally ineffectual...much like their past (and oh so relevant) judgments.... Right?

Pure genius, man. You're about as thick as they come, aren't you?

The tool is splitting hairs again and ignoring what I actually wrote.

Windows N is irrelevant. That was about Windows Media Player, not browsers.

Opera needs to shut up. Microsoft is perfectly allowed to do whatever they want with their own systems. Any company would push their own products. So Microsoft includes IE with windows, no surprise. If Opera had an OS, they would do the same. I'm just glad Microsoft is cool enough to recognize that users may not like ALL of their products, and allow us to easily uninstall it rather than just use other software around it.

Cheers to Microsoft!

HanClinto: Actually, Microsoft is not perfectly allowed to do whatever they want.

There's such a thing as "laws".

Microsoft broke these things we call "laws".

Breaking these so-called "laws" has consequences.

Cheers to Microsoft? For breaking the law and trying to pretend that they are doing something so they don't have to suffer the consequences of you actions?

What are you, a Socialist?

Steve Jobs Get the hell off our message boards!!! Go deal with your health!

Capitalism only works with socialism... So it's not such a bad idea:)

For example, did you know that 90 percent of americans have not seen their sallary increase the last 30(!) years. So 90 percent of americans are being screwed by their appearantly succesful state, and they are not aware of it.

Hey Tetzchner, shut up. How about this...go out and build your own OS and then you can have an OS with Opera bundled. I'm sure MS is scared of making you and the other 3 people that use Opera on Windows mad.

blackroseMD1: What's wrong with you? How about educating yourself before spouting nonsense?

This is not about OSes. It's about the fact that Microsoft broke the law by abusing its dominant position in one market to prevent competition in a different market.

MS scared of Opera? First of all, both Mozilla and Google are backing Opera in this one. And secondly, it's the EC that handles the case. Opera just reported the violation to them.

Now go home and get a clue.

"It's about the allegation that Microsoft broke the law by abusing its dominant position in one market to prevent competition in a different market."

There. Fixed that for you. :-)

Actually, tool, Microsoft was found guilty of exactly that in the EU in 2004, and of course in the US ten years ago. And now they are doing the same ting again. Precedent is set.

You're actually grossly more uninformed than I took you for....

In 2004 the EC found Microsoft guilty of violating anti-trust laws as it related to the charging of "royalties", the ability of folks to get, and the usefulness of their interoperability documentation.

It had *nothing* to do with browsers, you git.

Clueless twit....

It doesn't matter if that case didn't have anything to do with browser. It was the same situation with other applications and services. It set a precedent.

But you are desperately trying to pretend that Microsoft is innocent.

Pretend nothing. I just don't make lame-ass assumptions without at least recognizing that they are, in fact, assumptions.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to get by without claiming yours as *fact*.

Kind of hard to argue with someone who cannot admit there's a difference.

I just wish we could do this for not only IE but all the OEM (dare I say crap) like from Sony and Dell BEFORE it gets istalled. With Vista/Windows 7 shouldn't they be able to do a few custom WIMs and say for example. With little impact on the actual WIMs size.

1 Yes install the OEM Extra Crap for me or
2 I know what I am doing and will install it manually if I really feel I need to thanks for not bloating my os

Also, anybody who approves of Microsoft keeping competition away, and then whines about Opera making this move (towards a bigger piece of the cake and other reasons), is simply a hypocrat.

Oh good Lord get a clue - how is Microsoft keeping "competition away"? - the OS is THEIR product, they should be able to load anything they want on it. If they denied the installation of another browser, you pinheads MIGHT have a point but THEY DON'T. The only "whines" I see are coming from those who want something for nothing....waaaa, it's not fair, Microsoft doesn't promote another product...amazing isn't it!!! (I don't see too many cases of Coke with a Pepsi can inside of it either)

I see were you're coming from, but there's at least one problem with your coke argument. Everyone will know they can buy a differnt coke than pepsis. That's because the sodas are next to each other in the store. Now if pepsi owns 70 percent of the stores, and decides to only sell pepsi, you have a case of what in Europe at least is always considered 1. a hinder for competition and 2. a problem for the consumer and 3. this leads to poor quality pepsi and expensive pepsi (because of no competition.

What is more important, Microsoft or the end user? Microsoft needs to feel some real pressure so that end users can have the best web-experience.

jspratjr: It is their OS, but they broke the law. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?

It's your body and your freedom, but if you break the law, you lose that freedom. You get thrown in jail.

Is Coke a convicted monopolist? Did they break the law? At least educate yourself before spouting nonsense.

Well do you go and say BMW that you donot like its steering so give me an option to change it ?

If you donot like the OS donot use it. There are alternate OS available in market or wait isn't there everyone live Apple there who is never said anything though they monopolise every software on there OS ?

So, the problem is Europeans aren't aware there are alternatives (in the OS and browser markets)? and somehow that's Microsoft's fault? Back to the Coke/Pepsi analogy - yeay31, why isn't the EC going after the retailers then because they are not providing alternatives to Windows (i.e. Windows isn't sitting next to other OSs in the store)? I didn't realize "Microsoft stores" were all over Europe.

On a side note, as others have mentioned, where do you draw the line? Does Microsoft have to provide alternatives for every single program that comes installed with the OS? oh yeah, the Media player thing.....the answer MUST be yes, otherwise the EC (is breaking the law and) is discriminating against all others. The EC is a total joke.

mukerjee: Did you read my damn comment? Clearly not. BMW is not a convicted monopolist, is it? BMW did not break the law, did it? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and DID break the law. That's the difference. Also, this is about BROWSERS. Geez, some people...

jspratjr: Americans aren't aware of the alternatives. But that's not the point. The point is that Microsoft actively abused its dominant position in one market to prevent competition in a different market. That is ILLEGAL both in the EU and the US.

The retailers? How on earth are they relevant?

Where you draw the line? You draw the line at where Microsoft broke the law. It has been shown that they broke the law when it comes to browsers.

If the EC is a joke, then the US is a joke, because they have antitrust laws too, and in fact used them against Microsoft.

Your ignorance is astounding.

blaberry: guess u live on a different planet. Have you ever bothered reading the meaning of monopoly. I gather never. But then what can I expect from some of these people.

anyway go and ask Linux to put IE as a browser in Linux or Apple to put Firefox as default browser in there device.

Or to say ask Opera in there installer to give an option to install fireffox, safari , or even netscape. .

Some cry babies you people are ... actually u know what you should only use a text based OS with no tools what so ever :) and you should install every tool you want the "hard " way.

Difference is, Microsoft follows the US Anti trust laws. EU is just trying to bully around another company. Yes EU Is a joke. There is other OS's. But your 75 year old grandfather would have NO clue wth to do with Linux.

mukerjee: Are you retarded or just drunk?

Linux is not a monopolist. Nor is Opera.

And yes, Microsoft is a monopolist according to the law.

Wiretap:

So you are saying that US law applies in the EU?

LOL.

Idiot.

So the EU is a joke for enforcing its law, but no the US?

Idiot.

How can this be bad in any way. You get your PC, you open the browser choice window, you choose a couple of browsers. IE just because it's what you've always used, then the one that has the highest user rating (Firefox/Opera), or the one you have a particular interest in (Crome/Flock).. Simple, practical and useful...

What you have to keep in mind that most users out there are not tech people who cares that there is a choice. So you end up with a lot of people using IE6 for example. Web-developers are killing themselves over this. Hence, web developers will not jump of bridges any more.

Finally, for all of you that think monopoly makes sense... I don't know... you must be neo-liberal market believers. Read FINANCIAL CRISIS. Your ideology simply won't work.. People are greedy and in the end it is a pain for the majority.

So go Opera, they're not stealing anything from anybody, just making the web-world a better place to be.

I would like to see the Opera installer ask at startup "Are you sure you want to install Opera? Here are some alternative browers you can choose from, too."

Beautiful *and* insightful.

Yes, I complimented someone. Get over it.

Great idea. Opera is really getting to me. Yes, the browser is decent, minus my inability to use other programs I've invested considerable amounts of time and money into with it, but get off your high horse. You might have been first to develop certain features and you might be able to code your browser to quickly pass an acid test (which doesn't validate real world browsing), but what makes you the authority on what another company should do with their browser?

I say microsoft should give us this option when the situation the above poster mentions comes true. Give us an option to install firefox in your installer, then you can complain about microsoft not giving the option.

yohimbe9: Did Opera break the law? Your installer comment proves just how poorly your understanding of the law is.

PC_Tool: If you think that was insightful, I feel sorry for you.

FixXxeR: It isn't Opera which is an authority. It's the EC. And the EC found that Microsoft broke the law. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?

And short.

This ought to be good...

@blabby:

What law, exactly, did they break. I really would like to see if you can sum this up. Don't tell me "Anti-trust", as this is the EC...their "laws" regarding anti-trust are variable. What set it off?

At this point in time, the EC is actually claiming that Microsoft has met all of their obligations to them. Are you claiming otherwise?

This "whining" by Opera is just that...the EC has yet to make any ruling or even comment on the issue. No law is broken until the EC sez so, eh? (Or is it until blabby sez so?)

PC_Tool: Wait, are you actually suggesting that the EU was lying when it said that Microsoft had broken the law? That the EU does not know its own laws?

Remember, I'm not the one making claims here. I am merely telling you the facts: The EU, like the US, found that Microsoft broke antitrust laws:

CNN:

"European antitrust regulators have told Microsoft Corp. that the company's practice of including its Internet browser with its popular Windows operating system violates European competition law"

http://money.cnn.com/new...JONESDJONLINE000884.htm

No wonder your comments are so delusional. You don't even know the law.

It is illegal in both the US and EU to abuse one's dominant position in one market to prevent competition in another market. Predatory bundling is illegal! Is that so damn hard to understand? Apparently, if one is completely ignorant.

And NO, the EU did NOT claim that Microsoft met their obligations. You may be referring to the 2004 antitrust ruling which is NOT relevant to this new antitrust case. Once again, your ignorance shines through.

Try posting links that work.

*laughing*

I hope to gawd it's to your "trial" and the "decision" by the EC. What was that final decision by the court again???

Wow, are you this helpless?

http://europa.eu/rapid/p...e=EN&guiLanguage=en

From the horse's mouth.

So the answer is no. No trial. No decision. Just a statement of objections (a complaint letter).

That about sum it up? So what law was broken again?

PC_Tool: So you are claiming that Microsoft is completely innocent?

The law that was broken is article 82, ignorant fool.

*laughing*

Putting words in my mouth. So typical. I never said that, but hey...I will.

"Innocent until proven guilty"

How's that? Have they been proven guilty yet? No? Funny that. Saying they've broken a law when you are merely assuming it to be true (regardless of what you think may be relevant) is the epitome of cluelessness.

I have no doubts that the EC will do whatever they can to force MSFT to make a -N version of windows without IE. But I am not about to call it a done deal when it is, in fact, not.

Unlike you, some of us actually rely on facts more than assumptions. :)

They won't make the N version mistake again. And besides, companies like Google and Mozilla are on board to make sure that doesn't happen.

Here's a thought:

Pay OEM's to install Opera and make it the default.

While I don't seriously think this will ever happen, it would be amusing to watch the reaction as millions of users do the unthinkable and actually *choose* IE over the "default".

considering IE is etched in every persons brain, average, power user or neither

one should consider "so what if the free opera browser" doesn't get a foot hold in the market as ie."

what comes to mind is the underlying motive for making and distributing freeware. freewares cost money to make/engineer. therefore they generate revenue for its maker.

maybe people should re-consider the motives behind freewares as being spyware, cataloging information of its users and providing the marketing data back to its home base as payment for using their software.

You do realize, DatabaseBen, that some people create freeware as a hobby or because they want to give back to the community.

Funny guy. I bet when he orders pizza he argues with delivery man that not getting his diet coke for free changes the market dynamics.

zealus.com:

No he doesn't. Your pizza example is completely moronic.

He's just jealous! hehe

So Microsoft and Google are jealous too? I mean, since they've been throwing antitrust complaints around even against each other...

oh go stuff yourself Tetzchner. jump on the bandwagon like all the other brown s***s

So Microsoft and Google are brown s***s as well, since they've been throwing around antitrust complaints against other companies as well?

What rubbish from Opera. I am going to un-install their browser from my O/S and continue using IE8 or FF. I hope that opera ceases to exist. There has always been free choice, people can always download their browser if they want! Perhaps it's people who choose not to install their browser because it is not open! Bye Bye Opera Browser...

"What rubbish from Opera. I am going to un-install their browser from my O/S and continue using IE8 or FF. I hope that opera ceases to exist. There has always been free choice, people can always download their browser if they want! Perhaps it's people who choose not to install their browser because it is not open! Bye Bye Opera Browser..."

Actually, Opera's user base has doubled in two years.

And if you are uninstalling Opera, then surely you are uninstalling Firefox, Chrome and Windows as well?

Why?

Because Mozilla and Google both supported the complaint. And, in fact, both Microsoft and Google have been throwing around antitrust complaints against other companies, even against each other!

But I guess you are just another internet tough guy hypocrite who doesn't care about facts.

"Actually, Opera's user base has doubled in two years."

2 to 4 isn't something to brag about. ;)

PC_Tool: Once again your amazing ignorance shines through. Opera has more than 35 million desktop users. Like Mozilla, they are using the automatic update check to count the number of users.

Now compare that to Firefox. Or IE.

The formula I posted above still applies. :)

You are clearly clueless, PC_Tool. You didn't even know how many users Opera has.

*laughing*

Their market share is below 10%. I couldn't care *less* how many users they have.

You seem to think they're so important... let me remind you: less than 10% market share. You're right abotu one thing...they're irrelevant.

The tool can keep willfully ignoring facts. That won't help him. PC_Tool is a bigoted tool who willfully ignores facts.

What facts, you ignorant jackass?

The fact you keep claiming your assumptions are self-evident truths? I'm definitely not ignoring that one.

...and then you call me bigoted. How cute. Do you even know what that word means, genius?

Users will do what they are told to do and MS understood that if a user is only presented with IE, they will not make an effort to find something else.
Even if the average user is able to uninstall IE, the majority won't and they probably won't be able to figure out how.
Should be interesting to see where the uninstall button is.
http://afewtips.com

"Should be interesting to see where the uninstall button is."

Programs and Features?

Not really that interesting at all... Sorry.

like PCTool said, programs and features / turn windows features on or off ... and users who don't know what they are doing and treat their computers like a TV sometimes need the ease of use MS provides, the rest of us will easily see all available options

@PC_Tool

Seems easy enough to me, I'm on windows 7 7048 right now and I have the option to turn off IE8, I haven't done it, I'm a web designer I need it for testing.

Tho I did run across tablet pc components, I did turn that off.

And my favorite turn off/on feature, Media Features, it includes windows dvd maker, media center, and media player.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2rzsw3t.jpg

Wow.

Thanks for the screenie. Lookin' spiffy.

I'll wait for the official release of the RC, but I admit waiting is going to be tough.

i've got 7048 running on an older Acer, seems they fixed the sleep issue i was having :D

@art

Excellent. I am having the issue on my wife's lappy. I am very hopeful the RC will take care of it.

several options that do NOT require you to use a browser to install another browser..
[1] - other browsers can mass mail cd's like aol and them used to
[2] - click start -> run -> cmd -> type ftp -> type open browser_manufacturer_ftp_site -> navigate to your installable
[3] - have install cd's bundled as extras on prebuilt computers
and - of course, the option to TOTALLY REMOVE IE would be nice

People always bring up Netscape and how MS killed it.
Must be people who never paid for Netscape, never dealt with the subscription, never dealt with Netscape support. Let's not forget the fine Netscape extensions.
I for one was happy to see the first I.E. and have not looked back.

As for choices, you get lots of choices when you buy a Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. Most people spend quite a bit of time removing those thoughtfully included apps.

Leave my IS alone. Don't strip things from it in the quest for 'fairness'.

Compete, be better, people will seek you out.

Microsoft did and do have a conscious strategy to kill off other browsers. It started with Netscape, but continued from there.

Stop being so incredibly naive.

@blabby

How about you stop basing your lame opinions on your fantasies?

Netscape was dead-weight. Any browser could have popped up and taken the throne from them. It didn't have to be IE...luckily, MSFT actually timed a release right for once and beat anyone else to the punch.

PC_Tool: Once again your ignorance shines through. Look up the US antitrust case. Although Microsoft tried to prevent it from happening, loads of documents proving that Microsoft had a conscious strategy to block competing browsers were revealed.

Their intent is not relevant. Netscape was already dead from the inside. Google it. Lack of direction from management, zero communication, no plan.

Which is more likely to destroy a company?

PC_Tool: Is intent not relevant? Actually, that isn't relevant to my point, which is that Microsoft didn't just happen to kill Netscape. It was their strategy to do so.

Being able to turn off IE-8 is a great step for Microsoft to take.
And that is all they should be required to do.
New computers come with an overload of pre-packaged software to begin with.
I always find myself uninstalling half of it & downloading & installing what I want.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in taking that action either.
The non Microsoft browsers that are available are always in a constant state of update and change. So by the time the computer is bought and set up, the packaged browsers would be obsolete & need to be re-installed anyway to get the current version.
So shut up Von T. (Mister Opera) and just get over yourself.

"And that is all they should be required to do."

Says who? Not the law, certainly. Why should Microsoft be above the law?

"The non Microsoft browsers that are available are always in a constant state of update and change. So by the time the computer is bought and set up, the packaged browsers would be obsolete & need to be re-installed anyway to get the current version."

So is Windows. And so is IE. Your point being?

"So shut up Von T. (Mister Opera) and just get over yourself."

Why should people get over themselves when Microsoft is breaking the law?

"Why should people get over themselves when Microsoft is accused of breaking the law?"

There. Fixed that for you. :-)

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

I don't need more bloatware crap because every little developer out there must have his software installable straight from the windows dist. What Tezchner needs however is a new taylor and barber.

So Microsoft should be able to break the law without consequences?

Maybe he should get a new tailor instead of a new taylor. :) It would be nice if Windows had something like Synaptic (or better) in Linux where you can look at (and search) repositories and install the software you want. That would also allow the person to install the web browser they want and a web browser would not need to be included. Just start this program at initial launch with the search query of "browser".

When did Betanews become an Apple site?

From the beginning of the PC it was an open standard with interchangeable compatible parts from multiple vendors. Free markets work. The PC open standard is so successful at lowering cost and improving quality even proprietary products like the Mac have moved to the PC platform.

The software is supposed to be interchangeable and available from multiple vendors too.

Competition and standards compliance is the best way for OUR industry PC standard to continue to improve. That's right it's our PC standard. The PC is not a Microsoft proprietary platform, and it is not in the best interests of anyone, except Microsoft, for the standard to be allowed to move in that direction.

what are you even talking about? lol we're talking about IE, part of the OS (the out of box experience) ... its hardly the fault of MS that Apple, Linux, Google, Mozilla were late getting into the game, now they have to make up for it, Apple ships with Safari, many Linux distros ship with Firefox, if we're going to be fair here, every OS should come minus a browser, and bundled with an installer package setup with various browser flavors, thats fair... if that were to become standard

artfuldodga: Are Apple and those Linux distros convicted monopolists? Did they break the law? Microsoft did.

Your post is nonsense.

"Microsoft allegedly did"

There. Fixed that for you. :-)

You do know that being accused of something is completely different than being guilty of something, right genius? (That was a rhetorical question as it is obvious to all here that you do *not*)

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

the guy is a loser, whatever, what right does he have to tell Microsoft on what they can or cannot include in their OS???? That's insane!!! get a life Tetzchner, and get over it!!(the fact is, no one wants your sorry a** browser)

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. I know it is asking much, but please research what that means and the history of the PC industry before commenting on such matters. You people make Microsoft sound like a victim here, when history clearly shows something quite different

history shows that more often than not, you're punished for your success, at least in the EU

It is a different kind of monopoly. MS didn't use (very) underhanded techniques to intentionally dominate a market share. Apple gave away PCs for free to schools and still failed to stand up...

"MS didn't use (very) underhanded techniques to intentionally dominate a market share."

Oh, but they did. That became very clear during the trial in the US. They had a clear strategy to kill all browser competition, among other things by threatening OEMs if they bundled something other than IE.

artfuldodga: "history shows that more often than not, you're punished for your success, at least in the EU"

Wow, that's rich. What about the antitrust laws in the EU?

Also, what if your "success" is built on breaking the law? Why should Microsoft be able to freely break the law?

to fatty

is that right? I don't need a history lesson from you, I lived through it, Microsoft bashing is a common thing these days--it is easy to blame them for all your problems, Opera hasn't succeeded for many reasons and the fact that IE is bundled with Windows isn't one of them, so get YOUR facts straight buddy!!

@blabby

The anti-trust laws in the EU, for your information, are vastly different from those in the US. Google it. You don't have to break a law in the EU for them to come down on you, hell...you don't even have to have greater than 50% of the market.

I thought, prior to this post, you at least had some clue as to what you were talking about. Well, I'll chalk that up as my mistake for the day.

quigonn32: Actually, Opera sets new profit and revenue records all the time. In the mobile market, a market with actual competition, Opera is the dominant browser. And the growth is amazing. Something like 3-400% growth each year in the mobile market for Opera. Microsoft isn't to blame for ALL problems, just for breaking the law.

PC_Tool: Oh yeah? And how are they "vastly different"?

Microsoft DID break the law, as the EC stated. See the link I posted the last time you posted your inane drivel.

The fact that IE is bundled with Windows has prevented competition, and that is illegal.

*yawn*

Try the link again....seems to resolve to a 404. I bet that's MSFT's fault.

Are you too stupid to use a search engine? Are you doubting the fact that the EC found that Microsoft broke the law? Read this, then:

http://europa.eu/rapid/p...e=EN&guiLanguage=en

Now stop trying to lie Microsoft's way out of this.

The fact that IE is bundled with Windows has prevented competition, and that is illegal.

If Microsoft actualy prevented users from installing other options you would have a point but Microsoft isn't doing that and even goes out of their way to make sure that OS updates do not break competitions software.

Also Microsoft doesn't prevent OEMs from including alternatives example I purchased an HP system a couple years ago and it included netscape.

@blabby:

Again...it's a Statement of Objections. Not a ruling. Yes, in fact. I *am* denying that a case was brought tried and judged in this instance. It is *you* who seems to be under the impression that a ruling has been made that amounts to *anything* more than a complaint and "we'd really like it if you did this...."

But keep confusing a complaint with a judgment. Your clueless ranting is entertaining.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

I'd echo... no one complains about Paint or Notepad... the whole JavaScript thing pretty much worked itself out, and since then, it really hasn't mattered. For a very long time, IE was just a thing I used to download Netscape or Opera and never used again. And for that matter, should all of the Linux dists and Mac OS be targeted? Most have browsers built in (even in older KDE and Gnome systems).

Are Paint and Notepad illegally used to undermine competition? Hardly. For example, they produce files that are perfectly readable by other applications.

JavaScript worked itself out? Ah, so that's why Microsoft recently was able to kill ECMAScript 4 because it was a threat to Silverlight...

Do Apple and the Linux distros have a monopoly? Did they break the law? No? Then your comment does not apply.

"Are Paint and Notepad illegally used to undermine competition? Hardly. For example, they produce files that are perfectly readable by other applications."

Eh? Exactly what files does IE produce that are unreadable by other browsers? Do you even read what you type? (one of these things is not like the other...come on, you can sing it too!)

Talk about comments not applying...

PC_Tool: Microsoft consciously made IE use prorietary technologies like ActiveX.

While IE doesn't produce content in itself, encouraging people to create IE-specific content is harmful.

Sez who?

Name the decision. Name the trial.

Can't? That's right. Huh.... That should tell you something. (It won't...because you're incapable of thinking logically about this, but that's beside the point, which is now simply to point at you and laugh)

Name which trial?

You do know about the US antitrust trial 10 years ago, right?

*laughing*

*now* you want to talk about that one? That one's done. It was over a decade ago. It's 2009 now, in case you missed it.

It also had *nothing* to do with ActiveX.

Pure comic genius...

i so never noticed microsoft holding that gun to my head and forcing me to use ie? infact until netscape dumped communicator and in my opinion killed there browser it was all i used even though ie was sitting right there ready to roll... what a freakin baby if your product is that good then work on making people aware of it and maybe they'll switch

The fact that you are browsing/commenting on sites like Betanews states that you have some sort of interest in technology. Many people don't and therefore use the included browser. I have friends/family that do know about alternatives but also that don't know about them.

And that markets do need some regulation should be clear right now, even for you thickheaded Americans. Markets don't regulate themselves (looking at the financial market right now). Kapitalism in its pure form is just as flawed as communism. Greed against lazyness.

which is why i said he should spend some time trying to educate the masses about there product instead of crying about how unfair the world is because microsoft built on os and decided to include the ability to surf the web. like i said before i was a diehard netscape fan until they in my opinion ruined it. i do like firefox haven't tried the newer builds but didn't care for the installing plugins crap prefer just clicking on the flashing yellow bar and it's all taken care of... anyhow just my opinion

wreckedchevy: It's not about "how unfair the world is". It's about the fact that Microsoft broke the law.

"It's about the allegation that Microsoft broke the law."

Fixed...again.

Hey Tetzchner, cry me a river.

Google and Mozilla support the complaint, and both Google and Microsoft have been throwing around antitrust complaints. Should they cry you a river too?

And why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences exactly?

Screw Von Tetzchner. He needs to get over it.

He needs to get over Microsoft breaking the law?

Why?

Why shouldn't there be consequences for Microsoft when they broke the law?

Million dollar daily fines, years of government oversight, being forced to open up their networking protocols...

Yeah, no consequences.

You're very entertaining for a nitwit.

PC_Tool: Are you drunk? Those things you mention are for a DIFFERENT antitrust case. The one from 2004. This one is more recent, remember? And they are not related as such. Microsoft isn't paying anything for the 2007 antitrust case either. At least so far, and at least if they do what the EC tells them to do.

So, should Microsoft be able to break the law in this new case without consequences?

"This one is more recent, remember?"

Nope. Name it. What was the decision? When was the trial held?

Oh, right...there hasn't been one yet.

Yer so cute...

Uh, are you really denying that there is a separate antitrust case for browsers from 2007?

Read this then, ignorant fool:

http://europa.eu/rapid/p...e=EN&guiLanguage=en

Seriously...are you slow?

"Statement of Objections"

No decision. No judgment. "This one" has no ruling.

Ignorant fool....indeed.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

Sour grapes.

So when someone robs you and you report it to the police, that's "sour grapes"?

No-one robbed the CEO of Opera, genius.

Ooh...let's throw out some more absurd comparisons. That's what you guys always do when you can't argue with logic, right?

PC_Tool: What Opera did was the equivalent of reporting a robbery to the police. Again, is it "sour grapes" to report crimes to the authorities?

Arguing with logic? You certainly aren't.

Comparing a robbery, theft of property, to the alleged breaking of some law you can't even name is logical?

In what bizzaro fantasy land does this even come close to making sense?

Jesus Christ. I would have thought that the whiners at least knew what this article is all about.

How can you whine like a crybaby if you don't even know about the law Microsoft was reported for breaking?

Here, read this, educate yourself, and stop whining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82

Still laughing....

Here's a hint: The quesiotn I asked regarding which law was broken was a trick question. The case hasn't even been started. A complaint has been issued. As with all modern legal systems, all allegations are just that until the final judgment is reached.

Answer: No law has been broken.

But I *knew* you'd provide plenty entertainment trying to "answer" that one. :)

The tool is playing semantics to get away from the real issue. He knows that Microsoft will almost certainly be convicted.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

Because of Von Tetzchner comments here Opera will NEVER see a place on any of my computers, this guy is a piece of work. I can't get over some of his comments.

Then I guess your computers will not have Firefox, Chrome, Google as a search engine or Windows, I presume?

I mean, seeing as Google and Mozilla support the antitrust complaint, and because both Google and Microsoft have been logging antitrust complaints against other companies (even each other)...

That's correct!

Maybe I'm missing something but is Windows the ONLY OS on the market? Is IE the ONLY browser available? More importantly, does Microsoft create the OS that people CHOOSE? Yes? Oh....then it's just more European whining.....

European whining?

Nice racism there, redneck.

What about the similar antitrust cases against Microsoft in the US? Oh, I guess it COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH MICROSOFT BREAKING THE LAW, the US authorities were just "whining"!

Your comment is missing the point. Microsoft broke the law by abusing their position to prevent competition.

Get a clue.

The anti-trust case in the US was how many years ago.

The oversight generated from that case was supposed to *end* last november.

Do you actually know anything about this?

PC_Tool: That the US case was many years ago doesn't change the fact that THERE WAS A CASE IN THE US, which was my point. Nice straw man, though.

Your point is that it is still relevant and that they should still be punished for it...all while implying there haven't been consequences.

It is no longer relevant, there were consequences.

Times have changed. Go figure.

As for the EC...*THEY* have not even determined a law has been broken. Sure, the "investigators" have findings...such does not constitute a judgment or final decision. Get a clue?

PC_Tool: No, you ignorant fool, the browser case is separate from the 2004 case:

http://europa.eu/rapid/p...e=EN&guiLanguage=en

"The European Commission can confirm that it has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft on 15th January 2009. The SO outlines the Commission’s preliminary view that Microsoft’s tying of its web browser Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system Windows infringes the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82)."

Regarding the 2004 case:

http://www.computerworld...c&articleId=9128973

"The decision to boot Barrett will have no affect on a newer antitrust investigation into Microsoft's business practices, however. In January, the commission accused Microsoft of stymieing competition in the browser market by tying Internet Explorer (IE) to Windows."

Rolling on the floor...

You keep calling me an "ignorant fool" all while totally ignoring the fact that it is *you* stating laws have been broken when, in fact, no judgment has been made in this case...which *is* (though you chose to ignore it) completely different from both the US case over a decade ago and the 2004 case which had nothing to do with browsers (though you claim both as precedent while claiming at the same time that *I* am ignorant for even bringing them up).

Good trolling, I must say. Ignore the facts, call people names, post the same broken links and absurd rhetoric over and over.... I gotta tell ya, even zridling couldn't pull it off for *this* long.

The tool is playing semantics to get away from the real issue. He knows that Microsoft will almost certainly be convicted.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

I remembered that few years ago, Opera is not a free software.

Actually, I prefer IE and Firefox. What if there's no broswer in Windows for beginners?

Opera is freeware now.

Although it is true that it's not MS job to advertise other browsers. The problem is Windows is a monopolistic OS and this changes the context. In the example of McDonald below. Thanks god, it doesn't hold 90% of the market in bread. Otherwise, lots of people would request that McDonald must sell other kinds of bread.

Here is a simple observation: most of people use MSN Messenger. Is it the best? May be not. But lots of newbies use it because it is already there. Then the rest is just snowball effects. Friend #2 use MSN b/c of Friend #1 and so on. Same for browsers, a non-tech user has no desire to hunt for an alternative, even if the alternative is infinitely better (yes, I rate IE that low).

I see your MSN Messenger and raise you a mention of WinAMP.

That boy survived and even flourished after WMP.

MSN Messenger ?!? no, I use Miranda IM. I don't think you could find me in MSN. My screen name is "MSN Team = Bandz of Mor0ns".

PC_Tool: Winamp? It's dead!

*laughing*

Sure.

Whatever lies it takes to make you think you're right, eh?

FWIW: Foobar seems to be doing quite well as well.....and then, of course, there's iTunes.

Of course all the Microsoft fanboys on here think this is BS. The real question is where do you draw the line? Can a convicted monopolist continue to exploit their monopoly to branch into more markets and kill competition? What is the point of anti-trust laws then?

*laughing*

Ahhh...those who can't compete lobby the government.

Can you compete if competition has been illegally undermined?

Can Microsoft not compete? They logged antitrust complaints against Google and others.

Can Google not compete? They logged antitrust complaints against Microsoft.

Basically, are you denying that Microsoft broke the law?

Are you denying that they have held the web/browser market back? (If you are, then how come Microsoft managet to get away with IE6 being out there for all those years without any updates? Would that happen in a market with real competition?)

*LAUGHING*

Woah, nelly... Someone needs to relax a bit.

Just a bit...

Few things:

IE didn't bring down Netscape. I was there. Poor management brought down Netscape.

IE6 wasn't updated because there was no relevant competition. The *moment* some did happen along (Firefox), the IE team actually started getting some work done. (Competition still worked, even though IE shipped with Windows...go figure)

I never said MSFT wasn't guilty of ever abusing the legal system for their own (short-sighted) gain. I also never even *mentioned* google. Neither of which have anything to do with the article or my comment. In fact, I never even mentioned lawsuits.

Lastly: Lawsuits != lobbying. You seem a tad confused on that minor point.

Someone a little...testy?

PC_Tool: It has been shown that Microsoft broke the law.

IE did bring down Netscape. Microsoft even had a conscious strategy to kill off Netscape to keep it from becoming a threat.

EXACTLY! IE6 wasn't updated because there was a lack of competition, and that lack of competition was due to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. You actually ADMIT that Microsoft did wrong.

What is the "lawsuits != lobbying" nonsense? What Opera did (and which both Mozilla and Google are also backing), Microsoft did as well. Against Google. Remember? Not a lawsuit, but a request that the antitrust authorities look into the other company.

I mean, did you even read the damn comment? GOOGLE complained about MICROSOFT the way OPERA logged a complaint about Microsoft.

Tool indeed.

"PC_Tool: It has been shown that Microsoft broke the law."

In a far away place, in a time long ago. The overwatch (in the US) for their "breaking of the law" should have ended last November. Not sure if that actually occured, but even now the EC is saying they have fixed the issues that caused their gripes.

"IE did bring down Netscape."

Were you there? I worked at Netscape at the time. *Any* browser could have done it....in a heartbeat. IE was just the one that showed up.

"EXACTLY! IE6 wasn't updated because there was a lack of competition, and that lack of competition was due to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices."

*laughing*

Yeah, they did a good job of keeping Firefox down....oh, wait...

"What is the "lawsuits != lobbying" nonsense?"

Did you actually *read* the entire thread? Look for context.

GOOGLE complained about MICROSOFT the way OPERA logged a complaint about Microsoft.

...and that wasn't just as stupid as this?

"Tool indeed."

How clever. Do all your insults have to be handed to you on a silver platter or is there actually an ounce of originality somewhere in your dormant skull?

PC_Tool:

# The overwatch (in the US) for their
# "breaking of the law" should have ended
# last November.

So? This case is in the EU. Your geography sucks as much as your understanding of the law, apparently.

# the EC is saying they have fixed the
# issues that caused their gripes

Nope. That was for the 2004 WMP case, not for the 2007 case. Pay attention. They specifically stated that it had nothing to do with the newer case.

# Yeah, they did a good job of keeping
# Firefox down....oh, wait...

Mozilla disagrees with what you are implying:

"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."

http://weblogs.mozillazi.../01/competition_is.html

The "case" in the EC hasn't even started, genius. They are under investigation. The investigators have findings but no final ruling, jugement or decision has been handed down. You're saying they broke a law when the case in question hasn't even been tried.

Cart before the horse, much?

PC_Tool: You are grasping for straws, ignorant fool.

http://europa.eu/rapid/p...e=EN&guiLanguage=en

They already have a previous case from 2004 as precedent. Your splitting of hair does not change the facts.

Do you REALLY think Microsoft won't be found guilty?

*laughing*

So...cart before the horse. Got it.

All of your ranting is based on supposition. Got it.

Newsflash: 2004 (hell, even the 1990's here in the US) ain't 2009. Things have changed.

A statement of objections is *not* indication of law being broken...it's a complaint.

The tool is playing semantics to get away from the real issue. He knows that Microsoft will almost certainly be convicted.

The accusation is strong enough that they have in practice been convicted already. There is precedent from 2004 for the exact same situation, after all.

Is the tool denying the fact that IE was bundled with Windows, a dominant operating system? Is the tool denying that IE became dominant after being bundled? Is the tool denying that the browser market remained dormant for many years, and that there are still huge site compatibility issues?

Using dominance and bundling to prevent competition is illegal. That is exactly what Microsoft did.

these folks seem to believe that today, 2009/10 ... to quote the Opera CEO a browser should not be part of an OS, now thats the funniest thing i read all day

lol

artfuldodga: Are you drunk?

He didn't say "AN OS", he said "not part of Windows BECAUSE MICROSOFT BROKE THE LAW", and breaking the law is supposed to have consequences, remember? He didn't say ALL OSes, he said WINDOWS SPECIFICALLY

i have been using opera since 2004 until last year to Mozilla and chrome! after reading this article i wouldn't want to use their product.
windows should be able to include whatever software it wants to!!
maybe pay money to include your opera in it!

I guess you won't be using Firefox and Chrome (or Windows) either then, considering that both Google and Mozilla joined the antitrust complaint against Microsoft. And Microsoft has logged several antitrust complaints of its own, for example against Google.

Microsoft broke the law. When you break the law, there should be consequences. Why shouldn't there be consequences when Microsoft breaks the law?

jon is such a prima donna.

the fat lady has sung.

I guess you think Mozilla, Microsoft and Google Google are prima donnas as well then, considering that both Google and Mozilla joined the antitrust complaint against Microsoft. And Microsoft has logged several antitrust complaints of its own, for example against Google.

Microsoft broke the law. When you break the law, there should be consequences. Why shouldn't there be consequences when Microsoft breaks the law?

The fat lady has sung? Opera is setting new records with profits and revenue each quarter. They are doing extremely well. Revenues on desktop alone were up more than 100% in q4!

lol, oh f*ck opera, they aren't doing themselves any favors whining about this that's for sure, the ability to turn off IE, and use another browser out there = choice, yet IE and an interest lead me to firefox, microsoft does not have to advertise another companies product of which they already make themselves. whats next? MS throwing up a window during install stating, before you start setup, would you like to try linux? WTF

opera does not even deserve a chance now that i've seen that douche of a CEO speak.

now, in the end, MS may give a short list of alternative browsers upon disabling of IE, first your average user has to stumble upon disabling IE, which they won't, because they don't care, so this leaves us with users like you and myself, who are already aware of every browser out there and use them, so how much will this help other browsers market share rise with MS adding these options? zero

mozilla and more specifically apple, can't say much, firefox comes with linux, safari comes with and is made by apple, i mean what do companies like these want? microsoft to do their advertising for them.... and google, they don't take advantage of their huge market share ahem, youtube/gmail, what with their download chrome ads on every youtube page, and promoting their own videos about chrome to the front page lol, but hey, i can't tell them what ads and videos to run, its their services

"in the end, MS may give a short list of alternative browsers upon disabling of IE"

In the very end, if Opera is successful, there would have to be a browser option during the Windows install process. Or else there wouldn't be a way to download a browser. Oh, how about FTP?

artfuldodga: You are clearly extremely ignorant.

F*ck Opera? So F*ck Microsoft, Google and Mozilla too, considering that they all have been actively using antitrust complaints against other companies as well?

Is Mozilla a convicted monopolist? Is Apple? No? Then they can indeed say much.

Microsoft broke the law. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?

It's pretty bad when your software sucks so much you have to cry to the courts to force it down peoples throat. Would they force McDonalds to sell the Whopper because burger king has lower customer numbers? This is ludacris.

On a side note: Is it just me or does this guy look like a complete douche?

It really doesn't suck that badly.
Remember, the guy who came up with the idea of CSS is the CTO so it's superb when it comes to standards compliance.

Which is another thing that doesn't help me understand why they've brought the case.

it ain't just you :)

Not just you.

improvelence:

Funny that. Both Microsoft and Google have cried to the courts the same way Opera did.

Microsoft broke the law, so why should there be no consequences?

Is McDonalds a convicted monopolist? No? Then you example just shows your extreme lack of understanding.

come on.. So should open office also come with it. How about winamp.. get over it.. IF your software product is good people will install it and use it. the last time I used Opera is sucked. but thats not the point here..

Catch up skimore. Windows Media Player is unbundled in the 'N' edition in Europe (which no one has bought) thanks to a previous EC complaint.
Office isn't bundled with Windows except by OEMs.

your right.. M$ just needed to buy more politicians in every country.. Just think if ford was forced to sell a car without a radio??

skimore:

Er, is Word bundled with Windows? I don't think so.

Get over it? Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?

Your "people will use it if it's good" comment is incredibly naive. Almost cute. Talk about failing to understand the market.

Blabbery.. Heres the thing and just read it well please?
Only reason Opera is raising percentages with mobile phone is because ITS bundled with it.. Believe me If I could uninstall opera and put on IE I would, or even firefox for that matter. At least with the PC you can.. Most mobile phones YOUR FORCED to take it because you can't download an alternative a lot of the time.

#2. I know Mozilla and Google are backing Opera. I think what a lot of people are saying though is Opera just sucks and thats plain and simple. Opera just clearly sucks as a web browser and I would choose Mozilla over it in a heart beat. Has nothing to do about the EC, its just is a poor web browser.

Wiretap:

# Only reason Opera is raising percentages
# with mobile phone is because ITS bundled
# with it..

Actually, it's the free version which is downloaded directly by users which is seeing the biggest growth. But yes, as a bundled browser, Opera is doing very well indeed. And to be bundled, it has to actually COMPETE with other browsers.

# Believe me If I could uninstall opera
# and put on IE I would, or even firefox
# for that matter.

Is that so? Then you won't be happy to learn that Mozilla joined the antitrust complaint against Microsoft, and Microsoft has been throwing antitrust cases at Google as well. So if you can't use Opera because of antitrust complaints, you can't use Mozilla, Microsoft or Google products and services either.

# I think what a lot of people are saying
# though is Opera just sucks and thats plain
# and simple. Opera just clearly sucks as a
# web browser

Nice trolling there. I don't care what you personally think about Opera the browser. It's irrelevant, and you are just trying to get some kind of reaction out of me. Just like a regular troll.

The problem I have with this is the following (which is flawed in some aspects, but the intent behind it holds true at least to some extent):

If the only reason that IE was so ubiquitous for all those years was that it was tied to the OS, then why doesn't the same apply with MS Paint versus other companies' graphics editors?

The difference in quality between browsers is, granted, less cavernous.

I really look forward to the possibility that this may happen from a web design perspective, but from a 'what the hell is going on' perspective, it doesn't quite sit right.

its called greed and money, but you're right... we'll see a more advanced 'paint' in windows 7, yet i really doubt MS will be dragged into court for it by Adobe, or teh GIMP :P

Paul Skinner: Is MS Paint illegally preventing competition? I doubt it. For example, it creates files that any other application can read.

Also the browser is COMPLETELY different in that it's a communication tool for a global network. Locking that network to Microsoft is illegal indeed. And Microsoft did that.

artfuldodga: It's "greed and money" to report a crime?

@blabbery: "For example, it creates files that any other application can read.

So does IE. Don't be so ignorant and get a clue.

morriscox: Actually, IE is stuffed with proprietary stuff like ActiveX.

@ blabbery: Nice try. You couldn't have ever done any web development. IE supports ActiveX, but doesn't create ActiveX files. So your argument is false. When you save a file in IE, it defaults to .htm (which for some reason is a HTML file that any web browser can read) which you can easily change to .html. Not only that but you can save in .txt and .mht and even more extensions.

Seems to me you're the ignorant fool.

What this boils down to is market share.
Because MS had the market share to dominate the market with their browser (which is arguably part of the OS) they could do what they liked with the browser. It supported HTML in much the same fashion as the competition at the time of its arrival on the scene. After a while of abandonment and relinquishing some of their market share to Firefox they were forced to play catch up and support more of the (equally arguable) HTML standards. It's not a legal requirement for a browser to follow those standards and MS were within their rights to not update their software (though of course, foolish). Web masters made the mistake of using ActiveX in order to attract more customers. This lead to greater market share as it was the only browser to support the feature.
This isn’t Microsoft’s fault, but that of idiotic web developers.

And no. I don't think Microsoft's browser is great or deserved its market share, but I don't think it got to that position illegally.

morriscox: I never claimed that IE creates ActiveX. I was pointing out that IE has all these proprietary technologies that Microsoft encourages people to use, which causes lock-in. At least pay attention before making a fool of yourself.

Paul Skinner: Yes, it boils down to the fact that Microsoft illegally used its market share in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market. Absolutely right. Microsoft even had a strategy to use all these methods to make sure other browsers couldn't compete.

Your "not a legal requirement to follow standards" is a red herring.

"Your "not a legal requirement to follow standards" is a red herring."

Actually, it's not.

The web developers were at fault for using the proprietory Microsoft extensions to the web (namely ActiveX).

blabbery: You are a real idiot. You talk about the proprietary technologies that IE has and conveniently ignore things like how the blink tag came to be (hint for the dense like you: IE wasn't the first to support it). You are obviously new to the Internet and don't recall the browser wars. Don't argue with those who have more experience and knowledge than yourself. It just makes you look even more of a retarded person. In addition, you claimed that IE creates documents that other programs can't read and when you were called on that, you started complaining about IE having proprietary technologies and pointed the finger at ActiveX. Then when I pointed out your ignorance, you insist that you weren't claiming that IE created ActiveX files. Yet you used ActiveX as your example of IE creating files that other programs can't read. Get a clue, jackass. You do not know what you're talking about and copying-and-pasting your responses about a dozen times or more doesn't work. Go troll your sorry self elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
morriscox
Mar 11, 2009 - 1:14 PM

@blabbery: "For example, it creates files that any other application can read.

So does IE. Don't be so ignorant and get a clue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blabbery
Mar 11, 2009 - 2:39 PM

@morriscox: Actually, IE is stuffed with proprietary stuff like ActiveX.

Paul Skinner: Microsoft actively encouraged people to use proprietary technology.

morriscox: I never claimed that IE creates documents. IE is a browser. Pay attention instead of being a fool. I used ActiveX as an example of a proprietary technology.

And "someone else did it, so I should do it too" is a terrible excuse. If you murder someone, "he did it and got away with it" is not a valid defense.

Asshat.

Whaaaaa. The only thing that will make people like him happy is for Microsoft to just shut down and lay all their employees off.

...or to make Opera the default Windows browser. And then he would whine about Apple...

Von Tetzchner, shut up and create a compelling reason for users to switch.

Either that or pay Microsoft to include Opera on the disk. They did that with AOL back in the day.

I'm really getting sick of all this envy from the OTHER guys. This is a Microsoft product. Allow the user to remove the damn program (which Microsoft is now doing), but if he does then it's up to him to go and find a replacement. Hell, if I go into the Ford dealer to buy a car do you think it's up to them to have propaganda available from the OTHER dealers.... I’m SURE Chrysler would love this option… Just for this reason I would never use Opera....

rsx508: Actually, I bet he would be happy if Microsoft stopped breaking the law.

foxfyre: Is Apple a convicted monopolist? Also, whine? Microsoft and Google have both forwarded their own antitrust complaints, even against each other! Is Google's product not compelling enough for users since Google did this?

Morpheus: Envy? Microsoft broke the law, and Opera, Mozilla and Google got together to have the EC look into that. The EC found that Microsoft indeed seemed to have broken the law. Is GOogle envious of Microsoft too? Google even added its own antitrust complaint against Microsoft!

It doesn't matter if it's a Microsoft product. If you break the law, you pay the price. Why should a thief be thrown in prison, but Microsoft should be free to break the law without consequences?

Your Ford example shows that you simply don't understand the law. How about educating yourself?

If you would never use Opera because of this, then you can't use Firefox or Chrome either since they are backing the antitrust complaint as well.

And you can't use Windows because Microsoft has used antitrust complaints against Google.

@blabbery

Can you please quote the exact law that Microsoft broke. You keep referring to it, but I apologize for being unaware of the law they broke (that they have not already obeyed the remedies for).

My question is why aren't we up in arms about WordPad. Why don't competing word processing applications DEMAND that we have an option for word processors when installing Windows? Perhaps it's because WordPad is worthless and no one with a serious need for word processing power would ever use it. However, does that make the argument any less valid. Is the complaint regarding IE only valid because it's actually a decent product that meets a need and meets that need to a degree better than competing products such as Opera. Where is the line? Is Microsoft stifling competition in the word processing market with the availability of WordPad? It is just as embedded in the OS and just as easy to remove as IE however I don't hear Google or Corel complaining about WordPad. I would like to see a consistent set of criteria applied to these types of discussions. Perhaps someone who is siding with Opera can help explain why my WordPad analogy is inappropriate.

h8n01:

# Can you please quote the exact law that
# Microsoft broke.

Are you saying that the EU and the US do not know their own laws? They are the ones pursuing Microsoft, not me.

# My question is why aren't we up in arms
# about WordPad.

Is Wordpad illegally used to undermine competition? Hardly. For example, they produce files that are perfectly readable by other applications.

# Is the complaint regarding IE only valid
# because it's actually a decent product
# that meets a need and meets that need to
# a degree better than competing products
# such as Opera.

Your subjective opinion on the quality of IE is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Microsoft illegally abused its dominant position in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market.

# I would like to see a consistent set of
# criteria applied to these types of discussions.

The criterium is: Does it violate the law?

Right. So you don't know the law but keep saying they broke it. The EU made no determination that any law has been broken. The law, of which neither of us are experts, aside, what EXACTLY did Microsoft do to, and I quote, "prevent competition in the browser market". Here's a piddly point, but can it be considered a market when no one is paying for the software. That detail aside, just because Apple OS comes with Safari doesn't mean that I don't have a choice. "In a free market, force is not used to prevent competition among buyers or among sellers" [Wikipedia]. Microsoft is forcing no one to use IE. They provide a browser out of convenience but in no way force the population to use the browser. If the consumer enjoys the product and finds no need to use a competing product then that is the competitions fault for not providing a compelling enough product to cause the consumer to switch, not Microsoft's fault for making access to web content convenient. Every day Microsoft's market share in browser usage is down. It's down to the likes of Firefox. Is this because Microsoft stopped providing IE with Windows or because Firefox is a significantly more compelling product causing consumers, of their own free will, to switch?

I'm interested in arguments that try to indicate this trend has to do with anything other than product quality.

@blabby:

A lot of BS that does nothing to answer the question posed... How perfectly expected.

"h8n01:

"# Can you please quote the exact law that
# Microsoft broke.

Are you saying that the EU and the US do not know their own laws? They are the ones pursuing Microsoft, not me."

So...no answer. Rhetoric all you got? The "US" isn't after them anymore. The EC has stated MSFT has honored their obligations in 2004 and has issued *zero* effective decision regarding the current allegations.

"# My question is why aren't we up in arms
# about WordPad.

Is Wordpad illegally used to undermine competition? Hardly. For example, they produce files that are perfectly readable by other applications."

Again, irrelevant. IE produces no files for "other" programs to read, ya git.

"What's relevant is that Microsoft illegally abused its dominant position in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market."

Firefox. Safari. The only actual case brought against MSFT concerning the browser that has been tried was over a decade ago. Get with the times?

"# I would like to see a consistent set of
# criteria applied to these types of discussions.

The criterium is: Does it violate the law?""

Something you apparently can't provide an answer to....

h8n01:

Actually, I'm not the one claiming that they broke it. The EC said so. CNN:

"European antitrust regulators have told Microsoft Corp. that the company's practice of including its Internet browser with its popular Windows operating system violates European competition law"

http://money.cnn.com/new...JONESDJONLINE000884.htm

But I guess you know better than the EU what their own laws are :D

# Here's a piddly point, but can it be considered
# a market when no one is paying for the software.

Then there is no search engine market. And yet, Google is making money off of their free search engine. And guess what, Opera and other browsers make money off of free browsers too!

# just because Apple OS comes with Safari doesn't
# mean that I don't have a choice

This is about Microsoft, not about Apple. Never mind the fact that many sites still require IE to work.

# If the consumer enjoys the product and finds
# no need to use a competing product then that
# is the competitions fault for not providing
# a compelling enough product to cause the
# consumer to switch

And that's the problem. Microsoft abused its dominant position in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market. Competitors didn't have a chance, and before you bring up Firefox, here's what Mozilla says:

http://weblogs.mozillazi.../01/competition_is.html

"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'm interested in arguments that try to indicate
# this trend has to do with anything other than product
# quality.

Are you seriously claming that IE is the best browser?

Get a grip. You are clearly losing it.

PC_Tool: I have addressed most of your ignorant drivel before. Read my other responses.

The browser case from 2007 is separate from the case in 2004, and Microsoft has not honored its obligations in the 2007 case because we don't know what those obligations are yet!

Firefox? Safari? Read the Mozilla quote above. Safari is bundled with Mac OS.

As the EC explained, Microsoft did break the law. Read the CNN excerpt above.

Now stop spewing out nonsense, and pay attention to reality.

The question remains, how is Microsoft forcing anyone to use their browser? Force being the sole determinant of restricted competition. Someone please answer the question straightly this time (respondent need not be @blabbery as I question said user's ability to answer a question straightly)

h8n01: Your question is dishonest, and proves that you didn't pay attention.

This is not about Microsoft holding a gun to your head and forcing you to IE. This is about Microsoft using its dominance in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market. Microsoft did this by using bundling and various other tactics, such as bullying OEMs to only carry IE, introduce proprietary technologies like ActiveX, etc.

The bottom line is that using bundling with a dominant product to gain dominance in another market is illegal. It's that simple.

All of this has been explained already, so stop being a dishonest snake, asking questions that have already been answered.

According to free market definitions competition can only be prevented by force. Thanks again for not answering the question directly. Or maybe you did and are admitting that Microsoft did nothing to prevent competition. According to your argument that bundling is illegal then an OS should only come with a basic IO system. We should have to install a way to explorer disk drive contents, an internet protocol stack, a mail client and any other app that makes the OS useful. Sounds like a great user experience. Can't wait for the companies of the world to realize you're right and stop bundling all these competition killing programs with their operating systems. Apple, hope you're listening too.

h8n01:

Microsoft prevented competition by illegally using bundling with a dominant product.

Bundling in itself is not illegal, but bundling in a way which harms competition is. Clearly, Microsoft's bundling of IE harmed and harms competition.

Your understanding of the law is extremely poor. At least educate yourself before spouting nonsense.

interesting thread and some passionate replys. i think its fair to say MS used there OS market share fo IE domainance , but thats business for you, and many bussiness will add 'addons' with their products to promote them, thats standard practice and not unusual. Instead of EU whinging every week, why dont they have their verison of Windows OS with no browser, wmm etc. Action speaks louder than words.