EC to pursue Microsoft

[PeterCH]

You can't uninstall it in the real sense as many programs rely on the underlying engine.
Turn pictures off in internet options and see how many programs actually use IE in some shape or form. How the EU expects MS to untangle the browser out of the OS is beyond me.

Please, can someone confirm this or deny it, has Trident been removed from Win 7 or not?

If not, this argument is moot. Trident is still there and 3rd party writers can still use it. But even if it was, the issue is that 3rd party developers and MS should get their act together and remedy this issue by alternative means - eg write code differently. MS committed a crime by fusing IE with Windows - there was no real good technical reason to do it, instead it brought out security issues and was only done to cement IE's dominance on the Windows platform.

MS committed a crime, they lied to the US government about it, under oath. They were not punished. Now the EC is seeking retribution for the crime. If someone stabs you, it's not enough they take the knife out of you, they have to pay for their crime. They have to fix your wound and take measure to prevent them from stabbing you again. This is exactly the same.

 

[Json C]

Please, can someone confirm this or deny it, has Trident been removed from Win 7 or not?

If not, this argument is moot. Trident is still there and 3rd party writers can still use it. But even if it was, the issue is that 3rd party developers and MS should get their act together and remedy this issue by alternative means - eg write code differently. MS committed a crime by fusing IE with Windows - there was no real good technical reason to do it, instead it brought out security issues and was only done to cement IE's dominance on the Windows platform.

MS committed a crime, they lied to the US government about it, under oath. They were not punished. Now the EC is seeking retribution for the crime. If someone stabs you, it's not enough they take the knife out of you, they have to pay for their crime. They have to fix your wound and take measure to prevent them from stabbing you again. This is exactly the same.

1. It is not really a crime.
2. It makes perfect sense to re-use as much code as possible (any developer on any platform will tell you that). There are many good technical reasons for it.
3. Are you qualified to make such sweeping statements?

 

[Json C]

No, we're not discussing browsers - we're discussing the forceful removal of Microsoft's browser from it's own paid for OS.

MS bundled the browser with their OS... so what? All the other OS's do the same. The problem MS had that made them anti-competitive (and as you put it tilted the playing field) was it forced OEMs to ship MS Windows pre-installed - that is what gave them the *unfair* advantage.

FireFox has been downloaded how many millions of times now (they hold a world record for most downloads in a 24 hour period - 8 million +)? Clearly people are able and capable to do so today.

You don't seem very well liked here, and your opinion seems to p*** off a lot of people. I must almost agree with you on this though: it's not entirely about the browser. It's about how they forced their browser. In other words it's about their business ethics.

 

[PeterCH]

1. It is not really a crime.
2. It makes perfect sense to re-use as much code as possible (any developer on any platform will tell you that). There are many good technical reasons for it.
3. Are you qualified to make such sweeping statements?

1. It is a crime in the eyes of the US DOJ and the EC. Abusing monopolies is illegal in those jurisdictions. The legalese or libertarian issues around this are another thing. The EU is not the US and they rule themselves this way.
2. It was done for other reasons - to make IE inseparable from IE. Secondly integrating the web browser into the OS resulted in many many security exploits or made it easier for security exploits to deliver better pay-offs.
3. I think the EC is more than qualified, hence YES. As an end user, I think I'm qualified too to comment on this issue. Maybe some developers need to learn to code differently? Finally as an EU citizenship holder (and often enought tax payer) I have a right to comment about this too.

Have you read?
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

If you think I'm unqualified and you have a very clear explanation why the EC is incorrect here, please put it forth in clear detail. Make it simple for us, it's a mark of great intelligence to explain things in simple terms. Convince us, otherwise a simple "you're not qualified" does not count and is a mere ad hominem attack.

 

[d0b33]

EU should force Microsoft to make windows cheaper

 

[Sackboy]

1. It is not really a crime.
2. It makes perfect sense to re-use as much code as possible (any developer on any platform will tell you that). There are many good technical reasons for it.
3. Are you qualified to make such sweeping statements?

Many of us are certainly qualified enough to recognize bad & insecure code.

Would we have the innovations we see in FF if we didn't have competition between browsers?

 

[Json C]

1. It is a crime in the eyes of the US DOJ and the EC. Abusing monopolies is illegal in those jurisdictions. The legalese or libertarian issues around this are another thing. The EU is not the US and they rule themselves this way.
2. It was done for other reasons - to make IE inseparable from IE. Secondly integrating the web browser into the OS resulted in many many security exploits or made it easier for security exploits to deliver better pay-offs.
3. I think the EC is more than qualified, hence YES. As an end user, I think I'm qualified too to comment on this issue. Maybe some developers need to learn to code differently? Finally as an EU citizenship holder (and often enought tax payer) I have a right to comment about this too.

Have you read?
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

If you think I'm unqualified and you have a very clear explanation why the EC is incorrect here, please put it forth in clear detail. Make it simple for us, it's a mark of great intelligence to explain things in simple terms. Convince us, otherwise a simple "you're not qualified" does not count and is a mere ad hominem attack.

Holy ****! You mybroadband bunch sure are touchy.

OK, where to start:

1. the civil cases that were brought against MS by the US Government (the big antitrust trial) did not result in MS being found guilty of a crime. None of their execs were criminally charged. So hence, it is not therefore technically a crime.
   
   Perhaps there is a bit of confusion here: prior to January 2009, Microsoft were never investigated by the EU for bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system by the EU. Before this the EU anticompetitive civil cases instituted against Microsoft involved:
   • A 1993 complaint about forcing manufacturers and suppliers to pay royalties to Microsoft irrespective of whether the machine shipped with Windows or not (complainant: Novell, settled 1994)
   • A 1998 complaint that Microsoft failed to disclose vital technical information to allow competitors to interface with certain aspects of Microsoft's server and networking products (Sun Microsystems)
   • The bundling of a media player and streaming media technology with the Windows operating system.
   
   Microsoft have been fined unprecedented amounts in the last two points, and subsequently released a version of their Windows Operating System that excludes the media player (in line with requirements set by the EU).
   Microsoft have, most probably due to their track record with the EU, decided to remove Internet Explorer from a version of Windows 7 (since the new case now involving bundling of the browser with the operating system) that will go on sale in October, a decision that has been rejected by the EU. The EU's previous requirement that Microsoft removes an aspect of the operating system that was considered anticompetitive (the media player) set a precedent. That same precedent is now being ignored by the EU themselves. Reasonably the EU's new requirements are therefore without merit.
   
   So, just to be 100% clear: the US DoJ investigated (and settled) the bundling of the browser, and the EU investigated and instated penalties for Media player, anticompetitive supply chain manipulation and nondisclosure of important interfaces into the operating system. The new case of browser bundling brought by the EU is not pertaining to this argument as there has not been any judgment (or settlement) as yet. The intention to pursue the case has only recently been confirmed by the EU.
   
   So your statement that it is a crime is both incomplete and on both counts incorrect.
   
2. I doubt you're a security expert, so your assertion that it introduced security holes into the OS is probably speculation at best. I also doubt that Microsoft would have embedded the browser so as to purposefully create security holes, so this is argumentative, speculative and irrelevant to this point.
   
3. You have the right to comment and you have a right to state opinion. However: this right is voided when you make broad sweeping statements you try to pass off as fact. Just as you wish to make unjustified (and emotionally biased) assertions on factual aspects of a case, I maintain the right to question the validity of your facts and contemplate your qualifications in making such assertions. Being an end user of a product does not make you an expert. Being an "EU citizenship holder" does not qualify you to instate your particular brand of opinion as fact either.

 

[Json C]

Many of us are certainly qualified enough to recognize bad & insecure code.

Would we have the innovations we see in FF if we didn't have competition between browsers?

* That may very well be but has absolutely no significance or relevance to the mandate of forcing a company to make competitors' products available on your own platform.

 

[Sackboy]

* That may very well be but has absolutely no significance or relevance to the mandate of forcing a company to make competitors' products available on your own platform.

That's how competition law operates. If a company has used unethical methods over a long period to MAKE their product the dominant one in the world, then they shouldn't complain when officials question it and try and level the playing field.