# Off-Topic Discussion > The Lounge > Tech Talk >  >  EU & US Vs. Microsoft

## Ynot

I was just saying in another thread about the EU rulings on Microsoft, and the fact that MS has been forced (pretty much kicking and screaming) to open up a lot of their specification and implementation data for a variety of MS products, so third party products can talk to them properly

Specifically,

- details on the OOXML file format (Office 2007), so other office suites can read & write to the MS proprietary format

- the Windows server protocols (exchange / active directory / SMB etc.) so Linux clients can properly utilise services provided by Windows servers, and Windows clients can gain the same "functionality" out of Linux servers serving services via Windows protocols

Additionally,
the ongoing US anti-trust case
(which seems to be, at long last, growing some balls and actually doing something other than "monitoring" - maybe as a result of their EU counterparts being so active)
has requested that Windows 7 (the next version of Windows, after Vista) be made available to them for review - which they have now got
- sources here and here

and I was just wondering how all this is affecting MS
the big picture, so to speak

Not to mention the rather desperate-looking scrabble for Yahoo that MS is currently engaged in

MS's total assets (how much money they actually have + amount borrowed + any tied up in long-term investments) sits at US$67.34 billion
while their net tangible assets (actual physical assets - cash, property, accounts receivable, etc.) equate to US$22.41 billion

(both as at end of last year)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT

The EU has fined MS twice (so far) for breaching anti-trust regulations
total fines to date are €1.68 billion (US$2.57 billion)

That's a fine equalling 10&#37; of their tangible assets

The EU has a further 2 anti-trust cases in the running, which are yet to be decided.

As I said above, the US anti-trust panel seem to have woken up
(after years of sitting around "monitoring")

I'm not really a financial / business expert
(in fact, far from it)
but this looks (to me) to be pretty serious for MS

----------


## ninja9578

I never understood why Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo!.  Yahoo! seems like they never had any intentions, nor do they, in selling to MS.

Microsoft's stock is still pretty steady, but I think we're about to see a major drop off, their last couple of big releases have been failures: Vista, Zune, Office 08.  None performed as expected and with more and more people switching off of Microsoft products for Open Source or Apple equivalents, I'm expecting a paradigm shift in the computer industry in the next few years.  

It's about time, prices have been skyrocketing, but now with free software that works just as well if not better they will either drop prices and make major innovations or die.

----------


## Ynot

> I never understood why Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo!.  Yahoo! seems like they never had any intentions, nor do they, in selling to MS.



cause MS wants to take on Google
and as things stand,they have no hope of doing it without Yahoo's search & advertising clout
Google being #1 by a long way (~65&#37 :wink2: 
Yahoo being #2 (~20%)
Microsoft being #3 (~7%)

Ballmer's been quoted as saying
(paraphrasing, I'll try and dig up the real quote)
"I'll fight Google till my dying breath"

He's got a real thing about Google
(it's the upstart that slipped though the net, and was allowed to grow)

*edit*
here we are
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1...9363889,00.htm

----------


## Out of the Blue

Does anyone think that it's wrong that a company is being forced to reveal tech secrets and code because some people complain about compatibility issues? And also the fact that the company has almost no choice, but to give in to outside pressure because the cost of fighting it would be too high?

----------


## 27

It's hard to have a lot of pity for Microsoft.

----------


## Out of the Blue

Why? They've revolutionized computing and they're being persecuted for it.

I personally don't care for Vista and some other MS items, but the anti-trust claims leveled against them are bogus.

----------


## ninja9578

Not really, they haven't been responsible for any of the major advancements in the computer industry.  

Apple made the first largely available PC
Xerox created the mouse and GUI (Apple bought it, MS pirated it)
Apple shipped the first multitasking computer
Apple was the first to implement a hard drive
DOS was written by a small company in Seattle (MS bought it)
Lotus created the first Office suites
Corel created the first modern office suite
neXt was first to use object oriented programming
neXt prefected cooperative multitasking
Xerox invented the ethernet
Apple created the first laptop
Apple created the fir PDA
Sony invented CDs / DVDs
Apple revolutionize the media computer
Novell invented virus protection
IBM invented the tablet

Those are most of the major things in computer science.

----------


## Ynot

The EU Commission sets out various rules and regulations for companies operating inside Europe

These regulations are in place to protect the consumer

One such set of regulations focuses on abuse of market dominance

If you don't like these regulations
then don't do business inside Europe
it's as simple as that

Lifted straight from the EU Commission's Anti-Trust web page
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...erview_en.html




> Competition is a basic mechanism of the market economy and encourages companies to provide consumers products that consumers want. It encourages innovation, and pushes down prices. In order to be effective, competition needs suppliers who are independent of each other, each subject to the competitive pressure exerted by the others. The antitrust area covers two prohibition rules set out in the EC Treaty.First, agreements between two or more firms  which restrict competition are prohibited by Article 81 of the Treaty, subject to some limited exceptions. This provision covers a wide variety of behaviours. The most obvious example of illegal conduct infringing Article 81 is a cartel between competitors (which may involve price-fixing or market sharing); For more information on cartels see the cartels section.Second, firms in a dominant position may not abuse that position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty). This is for example the case for predatory pricing aiming at eliminating competitors from the market.The Commission is empowered by the Treaty to apply these prohibition rules and enjoys a number of investigative powers to that end (e.g. inspection in business and non business premises, written requests for information, etc). It may also impose fines on undertakings who violate EU antitrust rules. Since 1 May 2004, all national competition authorities are also empowered to apply fully the provisions of the Treaty in order to ensure that competition is not distorted or restricted. National courts may also apply these prohibitions so as to protect the individual rights conferred to citizens by the Treaty.



All the cases are publicly viewable
so if you're interested, take a look

List of all cases, past and present sorted by company name
Link points to the 'M's
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...x/by_cy_m.html

----------


## Out of the Blue

Lol, "competition...encourages innovation, and pushes down prices", but _too much competition_ is bad.

God, the EU's anti-trust legislation is practically as vague as the U.S.'s.

Let's propose a hypothetical for "predatory pricing." If we had two bicycle shops in a town, one company selling Bike X for $400 and another company selling Bike X for $375. Company 1 realizes that it would be better for them to lower their prices, so they start selling for $350. Company 2, feeling the pressure from Company 1, cuts their price drastically to $300 selling at a loss, and they present two options to Company 1, they can either try to lower their prices even further, or they can agree to be bought by Company 2 for a generous sum. Company 1 agrees to be purchased by Company 2.

Now, would you consider this a Monopoly situation which should be prosecuted Federally? Is this a horribe crime, even though Company 2 now has expanded resources and is offering the consumer an incredibly affordable price. But you say, now Company 2 can afford to jack up their price to higher than before levels, say $450 per bike. The obvious fallacy in this claim is that the market would once again be open to new competitors. The best option for Company 2 would be to use their expanded resources to drop production costs and continue selling the bike at the reduced price, bringing in more customers.

In this situation, the bicycle "monopoly" would benefit the consumer with lowered prices and possibly improved bicycles.

I would go as far to say that the only harmful monopolies in history have been ones supported by the government.

----------


## wasup

A monopoly has no reason to drop prices or improve quality.  If they have no competitors, than there is no reason to.  I don't see how you can possibly think monopolies are GOOD.  Competition encourages people to lower prices and improve quality (for the most part).

----------


## Out of the Blue

The only way a company can maintain a monopoly without Gov't influence is by offering the best product at the lowest price to the most people. 

Short of actions that are blatatly illegal (fraud, threat of violence, industrial sabotague) a monopoly can only maintain its "power" by giving the consumer what they want. Otherwise it opens the market back up to another company to supply that.

And, if a company were to establish a monopoly by dropping its prices; raising their prices again would again, re-open the market.

----------


## Ynot

there is absolutely no point in arguing about monopoly's
Microsoft is a desktop monopoly (~80&#37; market share)

as to abusing their position,
there's 4 counts documented on the EU site linked above

Vague metaphors involving bicycles are irrelevant

Again, as said above



> If you don't like these regulations
> then don't do business inside Europe
> it's as simple as that




*edit*
as to them "revolutionising" computing
can you name 1 thing they've invented?

----------


## Out of the Blue

Alright, no point in arguing about monopolies anymore.  ::D:  And not so much of a metaphor, but an analogy.

About Microsoft, wouldn't you say they've had a significant impact? Granted, I don't know too much about the history of Microsoft, but I'd be willing to say that they kick-started the computer-age. I'm not saying they're soley responsible for it, but just that things might have taken longer without them.

But, agree to disagree on the subject of Monopolies in a "free" market?

----------


## arby

The problem with your scenario is that you assume the the company is gonna just sit back and chill as competitors crop up. No, not gonna happen. Google was one of the lucky ones to have slipped through the radar until it was too late and now microsoft is openly slapping itself silly for its mistake and vowing revenge. To keep a monopoly, bigger companies will just eliminate any other company that becomes a threat by buying or choking, simple as that. Then the consumer gets the inflated prices.

----------


## Out of the Blue

To buy out costs money, there is no infinite supply of money for these corporations to draw from, and buy outs are expensive.

To absorb the cost of numerous buy outs or price drops, the corporation needs new customers. Which it can achieve by keeping prices low or offering a higher quality product with resources acquired.

Plus, how can you say Microsoft is a Monopoly? Do they have complete "control" of the OS market? Are there alternatives to MS? Yes. Are they affordable? Yes. Do people use them? Yes. Are they as powerful? Yes.

Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable. If anyone can control the market, it's either the govenment or it's the consumers. If MS were to spike its next OS to, say $5000 dollars for home edition, would people buy it? Maybe a handful. Would MS be able to wield their market "control"? No.

----------


## Ynot

> Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable.



you obviously don't remember IBM ?

----------


## arby

> Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable. If anyone can control the market, it's either the govenment or it's the consumers. If MS were to spike its next OS to, say $5000 dollars for home edition, would people buy it? Maybe a handful. Would MS be able to wield their market "control"? No.



Heres the thing: If there was no competition.... Anyone who wanted a new computer would have to. Plus, thats way too high in one jump. Theres a difference between high pricing and just being stupid. The highest jump we're talking about is home edition jumping to $400 or $500. Would people buy that? Yep. If mac didn't exist, would non tech savvy people really have a choice? Nope. If mac couldn't handle the "corperate standard" file types because MS wouldn't share them, would many average working people buy macs? Most wouldn't.

So, the monopoly brings in huge money from the overpriced wares, spends a pittance of that on keeping it's dominance and viola! No more free market.

The EU rules make sense. MS did business there and didn't obey the rules. Now they're getting buttfucked.

And don't keep waving around the "we just won't buy it" card. That only works when alternatives are plentiful. Don't believe me? Take a look at gas.

----------


## Out of the Blue

Is there anything criminal in charging what people will pay for something?

And if we look at the price spike for Vista, I can tell you for certain there are plenty of people sticking with XP because it isn't worth upgrading to get Vista. 

Let's take a look at gas. First off, we have many sources of gas that could be accessed domestically, but aren't, due to the _benevolent_ government. Also, there are numerous taxes on Gas in our country and especially in places in Europe, part of the reason gas is so expensive. Also, there are numerous subsidies for gas companies in our country, which does nothing but give companies profits they couldn't or wouldn't earn competivile on a free market. Also, due to inflation caused by the Feds and our government policies, gas has become more expensive. In fact, if we were on a Gold Standard, which would provide a stable and solid currency (one that would prevent massive government defecit spending), gas prices would be almost the same as they were decades ago. There are several conditions brought on by the Government which are the reasons for rising gas prices. And you know what? Gas companies won't be able to charge whatever they want. As prices get higher and higher, there is a stonger and stronger push for alternative fuels. We are seeing an increasing market for hybrid and other alternative fuel cars.

And, back to MS. One of the reasons the EU is extorting money from the company is because they were charging a liscencing fee for other companies to use coding/information developed by MS. This is the result of research and programming that could have cost millions to create. Does the company not have the right to "sell" the ability for another company to use it? And what right does someone have to say, "Hey, these guys are charging me a lot of money to liscene their software, make them sell it to me for cheaper!"

Anti-trust laws were put in place with the intention to "protect the consumer" however laughable they try to do this. So, who should be the one trying to build a case against MS? Who should be the people who are the brutal "victims" of MS's monopolistic polices? Well, the consumer of course. But, who is really behind the anti-trust claims? Companies like Sun Mircosystems that feel threatened by MS and have a hard time matching them. Companies that want the government to step in and restrain the beast of MS so the "little guy" can have a fair chance, regardless of whether or not they can offer a better product than MS.

And also, I believe I touched upon this earlier, the Anti-Trust laws of the US and the EU are both incredibly vague. They are so vague, in fact, that a company has no idea whether or not it is in compliance with the laws. They have no way of knowing untill someone decides to lodge a complaint that doesn't neccessarily have to be true. And the trial proceding are not held as one would be held for any other case. The prosecuted is not considered innocent until proven guilty. It is considered guilty and must struggle and fight through costly litigation where it has almost no choice but to try to settle or have to pay millions more in lawyers fees and the like.

----------


## ninja9578

"one day I was riding on the escalator and I tripped; I feel down the stairs for an hour and a half" - Demetri Martin  ::chuckle:: 

When did Sun come into this conversation, I doubt that they have much beef with Microsoft.  Sun specialized in graphics and networks and they _dominate_ those markets.

I think the beef that most people have with Microsoft is that all of their "innovations" haven't been their innovations, they've copied them other places.  View my post above.  :tongue2:

----------


## Out of the Blue

Damn, I'd have to find sources Ninja, but Sun, as well as several other corporations, were behind the initial actions taken against MS in the original Anti-trust cases first brought against MS.

Oh wait...found the source:

John Heilman, _Pride Before the Fall_ (New York: HarperBusiness, 2002).

Heh, Mitch Hedberg: I like escalators because they can never go out of order, they can only become stairs.

Notice: Escalator temporarily stairs, sorry for the convenience.

----------


## ninja9578

Huh, I wonder why, Sun has their own monopolies in their own fields.  Nobody sets up a large network with Windows  :tonguewiggle:

----------


## Out of the Blue

Well, it was in 1997, with Sun being in cohorts with Novell.

Sun and Novell and a few other companies formed the lobying group known as "ProComp" to try and persuade the Justice Department to launch an anti-trust case against MS.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

I think MS has a greater grip on the OS market than a normal monopoly. and here's why:

Assume Windows is installed on most computers.
->Programs written for windows do best,
-->so most programs are written for windows,
-->so you need windows to run most programs,
-->and windows continues to be installed on most computers.

->Additionally, most people learn to use windows,
-->so they avoid alternatives because it's too much new to learn,
-->and windows continues to be installed on most computers.

Now a windows compatible "translation layer" (wine) _is_ being written but that truly takes a fucking long time, and heaps of work.

----------


## Out of the Blue

So you're saying that a program that is widely used, has a multitude of programs that run on it well, is fairly simple to learn, and is growing is bad?

----------


## Ynot

> So you're saying that a program that is widely used, has a multitude of programs that run on it well, is fairly simple to learn, and is growing is bad?



no, bad only comes with sleazy business practices and a deliberate disregard for the law

you may have forgotten,
see first post for all the details

----------


## wasup

> So you're saying that a program that is widely used, has a multitude of programs *that run on it well*, is fairly simple to learn, and is growing is bad?



I bolded it where it's wrong.

----------


## Out of the Blue

> ->Programs written for windows do best



Just using what he said in my argument.

On another note, breaking laws in and of itself isn't bad IMO, you have to look at whether or not the law is constitutional, though obviously there is a different law/legal system in the EU than state-side. And maybe MS should just ditch the EU, except they can still make more profits being persecuted in the EU than not selling anything at all.

I don't know if that made any sense, I'm recovering from a stomach flu at the moment.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Actually I was using "do best" in an evolutionary sense (ie. they "win" - regardless of their quality).

I believe the main problem is Microsoft's monopoly. Why should they bother to make an outstanding OS, if they can just do the minimum, to get people to spend money on an upgrade? (Wait, I basically just quoted what everyone knows about monopolies. Meh.)

----------


## Replicon

I think with Vista, it's clearly more about vendor lock-in than quality. Amusingly, they did such an overhaul that it might end up hurting them overall.

I think MS' high point was Windows 98SE, though I suppose XP SP2 runs decently on modern hardware. Windows Vista kind of reminds me of the first Windows 98 edition. It really is like Star Trek movies: Skip every other (skip early 98 edition, skip ME, skip pre-SP2 XP, etc.)

----------


## ninja9578

Vista was about competing with Apple.  No debate.

Apple had released 5 operating systems between XP and Vista and all of them were better than XP so Microsoft was getting desperate for a product release.

They weren't finished with all (or any) of the stuff they they had promised in Vista so they slapped together a new interface with the new kernel and packaged it with the XP middle layer and called it Vista.

----------


## Out of the Blue

But the question comes down to, should Mirosoft be punished for offering an OS that people  will buy?

Regardless of the "quality", people are buying Windows over other, often cheaper, OS. Have we seen a slow down in the tech industry? Moore's law is still in effect. Innovation is still coming out. 

And Microsoft isn't immune from competition, which if they were truely a monopoly, they would. Ninja said it himself, "Microsoft was getting desperate for a product release." They were scared, they couldn't just sit back and rake in the profits they get from "controlling the market." Ultimately, the consumer has final say and final power. Microsoft has to continue producing something worth buying, or Apple, or other companies, will eventually tear it to pieces.

But again, the meat of the matter: Is it the government's responsibility to punish succesfull companies?

----------


## Replicon

It's the government's responsibility to uphold the law, and if laws were broken (or shadily bent) to achieve said success, then yes. We're not talking about punishing success. We're talking about punishing shady business practices, regardless of whether they led to success (in a "units sold/market share" kind of way). Even if a company is a failure, shady business practices should get them further nailed... but of course, you only hear about this happening to the successful, or at least, exposed, companies.

----------


## ninja9578

It's the government's responsibility to regular successful companies and to protect small companies from being completely muscled out.  Most of Microsoft's "Innovations" have been lifted from other places.  

It's obvious when they lift things from Apple because Apple has a huge legal division and technical users tend to use both so "similarities" between OSX and Vista are immediately recognized.  Microsoft changes things just enough so that Apple doesn't sue.

Small companies don't have the legal resources of Apple and can't sue if their product gets ripped off.  That's the job of the government.

FYI: Moore's law deals with hardware.  Software speed is going backwards in almost every aspect.

----------


## Out of the Blue

Ninja: Thank's for the info on Moore's law

There's a difference between monopolies and copyright infringement.

Monopoly does not equal copyright infringement. And Apple can be sued just as easily as Microsoft for (C) problems, but few people call Apple a monopoly on the OS front.

Actually, bringing Apple back into it, there are U.S. anti-trust cases being brought against them too in regards to iTunes and iPod. I mean that shebang is more restrictive than Windows-Windows media player bundles that MS got sued for in the past. 

Anyways, this whole argument comes down to a fundamental difference in Economic Market Theory since I threadjacked this post and neither side is going to persuade the other. Some I say pull out the old agree to disagree card and throw some sources eachothers way and let be.

If any of you guys are interested in the side of the table I'm coming from check out this essay by Alan Greenspan. A respected name, I'm sure.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

----------


## Ynot

Ouch !!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...ology/msft.php





> BRUSSELS: The European Union's competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, delivered an unusually blunt rebuke to Microsoft on Tuesday by recommending that businesses and governments use software based on open standards.
> 
> Kroes has fought bitterly with Microsoft over the past four years, accusing the company of defying her orders and fining it nearly 1.7 billion, or $2.7 billion, for violating European competition rules. But her comments were the strongest recommendation yet by Kroes to jettison Microsoft products, which are based on proprietary standards, and to use rival operating systems to run computers.
> 
> "I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed," Kroes told a conference in Brussels. "No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one."
> 
> Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in EU antitrust enforcement history that has been fined for refusing to comply with European Commission orders - a record held by Microsoft.
> 
> "The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case," she said.
> ...

----------


## Serkat

The problem isn't monopolies, the problem is monopolies subsidized by the government in the form of patents. I find it ridiculous that the very institution that makes it possible for intellectual monopolies to exist by handing our patents is now fighting the monster it itself has created.

I'm all for copyright but patents are something completely different. When you're handing our patents for every dim-witted invention you're literally putting the market to a halt. I'm not blaming Microsoft for this, they're just doing their business. They're working within the established system so it's their duty to patent every shitty new feature as if nobody else would be capable of coming up with it.

People are always babbling about how a free market is stupid and how Microsoft is a great example for that. News flash: A free market doesn't include patents.

With a patent you're literally handing out a free ticket to a full-blown monopoly, fully supported by the law. STUPID. NOT CAPITALISM.

Standards, mechanisms, algorithms, technologies etc. all need to be freely available to any entity who seeks to establish a competing service. The _implementation_ and _expression_ of these ideas needs to be subjected to copyright, but that's a whole different story.

Again, this is not about Microsoft, this is about the fact that you can patent the most mundane ideas and literally exclude EVERYONE else from competing with you. It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism.

It's not that the Office formats or the features of Windows are that great that nobody would have come up with them. It's just that you're legally not allowed to compete in these services simply because Microsoft patented these things way before the public ever got to know of them. Again, this isn't Microsofts fault, this is the government subsidizing monopolies.

EDIT: Well, let me acknowledge that some of it is obviously Microsoft just being huge dicks to everyone in the industry... that's true independent of what I've said above.

----------


## ninja9578

Patents help the small developer.  Because of patents Microsoft can't steal code or inventions from small time people.  When they do they get sued for it.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

True, but they also help patent trolls. I'd much rather if the government handed out prizes for _innovation itself_. Inventors invent. They don't sell stuff.
"Stealing code" is a misnomer because all anyone is 'stealing' is a copy of the code. Software patents are particularly stupid, to be giving anyone a monopoly over a certain algorithm.

----------


## Exhalent

Whenever I think of Microsoft I think of many many problems. Whenever something breaks around here, I say "There's Microsoft for ya."

----------


## ninja9578

Intel also just came under an antitrust suit.

----------


## Out of the Blue

Yeah, in Korea right? Made me groan a good amount.

----------


## ninja9578

No, in the US.  AMD is heading up the lawsuit.

----------


## Out of the Blue

Ah, I was referring to this:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-behavior.html
-
Eh, that makes me dislike AMD more-so, though they do have some interesting stuff coming down the pipe soon, one would hope. I just think if some sort of "Anti-Trust" suit is going to be brought up, it should be done so by a consumer coalition. Not your competitor who feels they can't compete on the basis of merit alone and need the government to step in.

----------


## Ynot

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37419





> *EU slaps Microsoft (again) for antitrust over IE bundled with Windows*
> 
> Opera Software's year-old antitrust complaint against Microsoft took another step toward being vindicated today, and the Oslo-based browser maker is applauding the European Commission's decision. Opera had filed a complaint with the EC contending that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows violated antitrust rules. Yesterday, the EC sent a "Statement of Objections (SO)" to Microsoft outlining a preliminary finding that bundling IE with Windows does indeed infringe on "the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82),"according to a press release issued today by the EC.
> 
> Interestingly, Microsoft Subnet had only last week been asking the folks at Opera if they had any news on this complaint, which was filed in December, 2007. A representative of Opera sent Microsoft Subnet this written statement, hot off the presses. From our point of view, Opera can't help crowing just a little.
> 
> On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking the next step towards
> restoring competition in a market that Microsoft has strangled for more than a decade. The
> Commissions Statement of Objections demonstrates that the Commission is serious about getting
> ...

----------


## ninja9578

IE sucks so bad.  I'm using Chrome and Safari when I'm on windows at work.

I don't think that they have much of a browser stranglehold.  Almost every PC user installs iTunes and Safari usually come with iTunes.  Google is the most popular search engine and people know that they make a browser.

----------


## Ynot

AHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245994/e...h-windows.html




> The European Commission could force Microsoft to bundle Firefox with future versions of Windows.
> 
> The revelation came as part of Microsoft's quarterly filing with the Security and Exchange Commission. Among the statements is a clause outlining the penalties being considered by the European watchdog, which recently ruled that Microsoft is harming competition by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
> 
> The most interesting situation outlined in the filing would see either Microsoft or computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs.
> 
> "While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC," the company reports in the filing.
> 
> "Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser."
> ...

----------


## arby

> AHAHAHA!!!!!
> 
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245994/e...h-windows.html



=O

hehe...

I'm starting to love those guys

----------


## ninja9578

I don't think that they should be forced to include other browsers, most people know about firefox and safari.  chrome needs some attention, it's far better than either safari or firefox.

----------


## Man of Steel

Chrome, better than Firefox? No. Faster, yes, but not better. Not by a long shot. I believe it still has issues with Flash, one of the supposed main features it's supposed to support. The scrolling seems to magically fixed itself, on my install at least, but the privacy policy is ridiculous. As of now, as far as I know, it has no real expandability (though I'm not saying that is a bad thing, necessarily). 

Better is very much a subjective term. Personally, I'll stick to Firefox. It's ability to add on web development tools, at the very least, is an insanely useful feature that I use daily. As I said, it's subjective. For someone who has no need or want of any bells and/or whistles, Chrome is perfect. 

That said, since the majority of Windows users probably fall into that category—no need or want of bells and whistles in a web browser—Chrome would probably be the perfect bundled minimalist web browser software.

----------


## ninja9578

I meant faster and more secure.  It's got firefox' networking system and Safari's rendering system.  It's lightning fast.  It's multiprocess tabs make it secure and stable, far more so than firefox.  I only use chrome at work.

----------


## Ynot

Offff.....
Check this

European Committee  for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) Provides A History of Microsoft's AntiCompetitive Behavior

Direct link to report (PDF) - http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalve...hoicepaper.pdf

Groklaw article
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90421111327711

----------


## Keresztanya

> IE sucks so bad.  I'm using Chrome and Safari when I'm on windows at work.
> 
> I don't think that they have much of a browser stranglehold.  Almost every PC user installs iTunes and Safari usually come with iTunes.  Google is the most popular search engine and people know that they make a browser.



That's where you're wrong, actually. I rarely see iTunes on PCs, because anyone stupid enough to buy an iPod is also stupid enough to waste money on a Mac. Safari is also shit, and most Windows users use Firefox or IE. IE actually still dominates the market share of browsers, with IE 7 and 8 put together. Firefox is in second. Chrome is not popular at all. Google doesn't do much but advertise it on YouTube, and most people just close it out and ignore it. Chrome is one of the least popular browsers, only barely more used than Opera.

----------


## Ynot

Thought I'd resurrect this, seeing as Groklaw are cataloging the court evidence in the Comes Vs. Microsoft case
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...09122612211929

The "Admitted Exhibits of Interest" have some real juicy stuff in them





> Additionaly the plaintiff highlighted on their website some "_Admitted Exhibits of Interest_" [all PDFs] PX 9695: Please review RE Linux CompetePX 9685: Eduation and Government Incentives Program (EDGI)PX 6105: Bill Gates - Security as a lock-inPX 7175: Jim Allchin Roundtable (GPL, Linux)PX 9280: Bill Veghte, Paul Flessner, Brian Valentine, RE: Goldman Sachs Linux PanelPX 7255: Jim Allchin - Scenario LeadershipPX 7278: Jim Allchin - Mac OS X "Tiger" - 10.4PX 3096: Evangelism is War.ppt and other misc. DRG slides / memosPX 7264: Jim Allchin Email re: losing our way...PX 8636: Jim Allchin RE: media playersPX 2456: Transcript of tape recorded at: DRG Summit-January 16, 1996; Power Evangelism and Relationship Evangelism; Presented by James Plamondon and Marshall Goldberg

----------


## ninja9578

Damn, I'm gonna defend Microsoft on this one *shutters*.  Microsoft can make any API that they want private, it's their API, as long as they don't completely shut out the hooks into Windows someone else can make a public (and most likely better) API.  

What's this about PDF though?  Microsoft didn't invent PDF, Adobe did.  ::?: 


Also, didn't know why Ynot didn't mention this: The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on the XML case with the Candian company, they have about two weeks to pull Office with docx formatting off of the shelves.  Rumor is that they're going to release a different Office 07 without it in leu of waiting for Office '10 to be released.

----------


## Ynot

> Damn, I'm gonna defend Microsoft on this one *shutters*.  Microsoft can make any API that they want private, it's their API, as long as they don't completely shut out the hooks into Windows someone else can make a public (and most likely better) API.



The above is the evidence presented at the Comes Vs. Microsoft case (filed in Iowa, US), and relates to MS's overcharging for software and services

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/mic...microsoft.html

The case hung around for seven years before being settled out of court in 2007





> Also, didn't know why Ynot didn't mention this: The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on the XML case with the Candian company, they have about two weeks to pull Office with docx formatting off of the shelves.  Rumor is that they're going to release a different Office 07 without it in leu of waiting for Office '10 to be released.



At the moment, there's nothing really to say on this
It all hangs on what MS actually does with Word
There's (as ever) wild speculation, but the deadline is 11th January 2010, for MS to strip Word of the offending features (relating to OOXML)

----------


## ninja9578

> The above is the evidence presented at the Comes Vs. Microsoft case (filed in Iowa, US), and relates to MS's overcharging for software and services



Oh
*kicks Safari's Summarize Service*

Oh well, at least now people are starting to realize how much MS overcharges by.  Now that Apple is selling similar software for a 5th of the price and Open Source software is getting more powerful and popular, Microsoft either has to change their business model, or do an IBM.

----------


## khh

> At the moment, there's nothing really to say on this
> It all hangs on what MS actually does with Word
> There's (as ever) wild speculation, but the deadline is 11th January 2010, for MS to strip Word of the offending features (relating to OOXML)



I thought it was more or less confirmed that they intended to release an "update" which replaced the parts that were affected by the illegal code.

----------

