Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Microsoft Behind $12M Opera Settlement 331

An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET it has been confirmed that Microsoft is behind the $12 million dollar payment to Opera (speculated earlier here). The payment was to avoid legal action over interoperability issues with Opera's web browser and Microsoft's MSN portal. On at least three separate occasions, Opera has accused Microsoft of deliberately breaking interoperability between its MSN Web portal and various versions of the Opera browser--charges that the software giant has repeatedly denied."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Behind $12M Opera Settlement

Comments Filter:
  • Follows the trend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:13AM (#9246147)
    This is starting to happen a lot lately. Microsoft is having money taken, because they try to push the little guys around.
    Hopefully they'll learn from this mistake. Probably not, if an AU$800 Million fine from the EU isn't enough to change their business practices, nothing will.
    • Re:Follows the trend (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This all comes out of petty cash for them. They chalk it up as a cost of doing business. If it really bugs ya, don't use any of their buggy, security-hole-laden POS software.
    • by adesm ( 684216 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:35AM (#9246297)

      Eight Hundred Million Australian Dollars fine? Gadzooks, have even the EUrocrats given up all faith in the stumble-bum of international currencies?

      But seriously folks, the Fine which has been levied has only been done at an early stage, despite some of the premature celebrations. Microsoft will appeal, there will be massive depositions and written submissions etc. and the matter will hang around the EU's 'ahem' Competition Authority like a pair of concrete shoes for a few years.

      Finally, after $SUITABLE years have elapsed, the European Council of Ministers, probably Employment Council or some such, will reduce the Fine to some EUR10m or thereabouts, after a closed-door unreportable meeting - following years of extensive lobbying of the Governments in question by Microsoft. That's how things are done in Europe, secretly, without public consultation or justification. See the recent whitewashing of the EU parliament's vote in relation to software patents [ffii.org] as an example.

    • Why did the EU fine them in australian dollars?

      To rub it in by making them go to the Bureau D'change?
    • by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:41AM (#9246337) Journal
      Actually, it's been said before, but they're not getting beat down here....they're settling all their open litigation. I'm not sure to what end this is progressing towards, but something tells me that Microsoft themselves is trying to clear all open cases against them so that they can gear up for something big.

      I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...
      • We can fix that - Everyone must have at least 10 hours of linux experience to be allowed to use the internet. No-one will go back after 1 hour, but let's make sure. Let's see how well Microsoft can gear up when Linux owns both the server *AND* desktop market.
      • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:23AM (#9246684)
        Actually, it's been said before, but they're not getting beat down here....they're settling all their open litigation. I'm not sure to what end this is progressing towards, but something tells me that Microsoft themselves is trying to clear all open cases against them so that they can gear up for something big. I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...

        If I had to venture a guess - they're going to buy a big media company. The only business that has more control than MS in their respective field is the entertainment industry. Once you have more money than you know what to do with, what do you go after? Controlling information. MS lost with controlling the internet, so they are going to go for the popular media.

      • Two Words... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Landaras ( 159892 )
        I just can't put my finger on what they're up to...

        I have two words to answer your question.

        Software Patents

        A few more words...

        Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard in February regarding not just SCO, but the future direction of the IT industry at large.

        He said that today the battle is over copyright. In five years the battle will be over software patents. And in ten years the battle will shift to that of bandwidth. Of ensuring that everyone has access to bandwidth as easily as they do electricity, so tha
  • Good... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:14AM (#9246154) Journal
    At least the one company that truly stands for browser innovation will have some more cash to spend on product development. Pity it's just a drop in the ocean to Microsoft though.
  • Opera: Bork Edition! (Score:5, Informative)

    by thesolo ( 131008 ) * <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:17AM (#9246180) Homepage
    After one of the first times Microsoft broke MSN for Opera, Opera released a Bork Edition [opera.com] of their browser.
    "The Bork edition behaves differently on one Web site: MSN. Users accessing the MSN site will see the page transformed into the language of the famous Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show: Bork, Bork, Bork!"

    Microsoft was purposely serving up broken style sheets for Opera; changing the user agent to something other that Opera would cause MSN to render correctly. For more on that, see the Opera article Why doesn't MSN work with Opera? [opera.com]
  • Microsoft business practices aside, I really, really hate the fact that IE development is at a standstill. Microsoft has said they won't release a new IE until Longhorn.

    Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.

    Amusingly there's a work-around under development called IE7 [edwards.name], mentioned on Slashdot a while back.

    But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.
    • But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

      Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?

      If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.

      • Uh. How is Microsoft keeping us from adopting those things?

        If people felt that SVG, for instance, is necessary, then they'd download a browser that supports it. Standard HTML, JPGs and PDF download for documents. That's all we need.


        Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.

        The average person is not that intelligent. I'm not saying the average person is stupid, but never the less. It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.

        Furthermore, many people browse at public libraries or similar places where installing software isn't an option.

        Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.

        If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.

        As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)
        • by sfe_software ( 220870 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:23AM (#9246687) Homepage
          Not true. You assume people are intelligent, able to install things, and interested in doing so in the first place.

          I agree with all but the intelligent part. It's not that people aren't intelligent, it's more that they have little or no interest in learning that much about computers. For those of us where computers are a large part of our lives and/or careers, these things seem obvious, just like a doctor might think some complex medical procedure is obvious...

          It's rather improbable that the average person has the skills or the motivation to hunt for the correct tool.

          That's a much better spin on it that I can agree with fully. Just remember, skills != intelligence. Nor does lack of motivation imply lack of intelligence; lack of interest perhaps...

          Add to that the fact that most people are quite lazy. If the page looks weird they just forget about browsing the site and go somewhere else.

          I do that myself, but in my case most times the page was designed for IE exclusively or requires flash, whereas I use Mozilla w/o the flash plugin. These days I find much less rendering problems, either because sites are more compliant (doubtful) or because Mozilla and IE interpret buggy/incomplete code in similar ways...

          If Microsoft actually continued to add standard compliant technology to their browser we'd have a situation where we could actually adopt new technologies at a sensible rate. As it is now this is hardly the case.

          Agreed fully. IE has, in my opinion, stagnated since version 5 or so, and no major feature enhancements (that I would use anyway) since 4.0. I forget which version implemented Microsoft's idea of CSS2 support, but in any case it's still not complete. Plus it lacks so many useful features that most other browsers have (disallowing unrequested popups, tabbed interface, etc)...

          As for HTML, JPEGs and PDF's being all we need... you really haven't done much in terms of real world web design have you? Sure, you'll get the information across, but that just won't cut it in the current market (this claim is naturally not without exceptions.)

          Standard and simple technologies are sufficient for many purposes, but in general I agree that we shouldn't be stuck with 1998 technologies. I like knowing that I can use certain advanced features, but in more than one case I've had to pull a cool CSS trick out of a page after finding out that IE doesn't support it (or doesn't support it properly). Often the work-around is to re-implement it using JavaScript, which isn't worth the effort IMO.

          Just look at the new features we've gained over the last five years (that are actually being used). Then look at the five years prior to that (1994 to 1999) and you'll notice that things have stagnated around the time IE became stagnant. Granted we're still seeing many technologies becoming more widely used (eg, CSS), but only because the market generally has to catch up. By the time we get anything new (at the mercy of Microsoft most likely), we'll see actual development stagnate for a while, while we wait for the new tech to mature, and for there to be enough users with a newer browser...

          At least that's my opinion, based on observation... however I do feel that HTML/CSS is currently pretty darned flexible if you learn the right tricks; it could be worse (it's not like we're stuck with plain ASCII text).

          In summary, I fully agree with you and wanted to comment on a few points, and to point out that I don't feel that it's lack of intelligence, but rather specific knowledge that many users don't care to know (nor should they have to, ideally). Computers are tools to most people...

          I do believe you used intelligence unintentionally to mean knowledge, as the other points in your post seem to agree.

          Oh, and I hate PDF. More specifically, the idea (portability) is great, they print nice, but I cannot stand the Acrobat viewer (I wonder if there's another Windows viewer out there somewhere...)

          (I really should get to bed soon; I noticed I'm rambling quite a bit here...)
        • FUcking Christ in a blender I'm tired of this stuck-up, self-aggrandizing, masturbatory horseshit.

          People are not stupid. They just don't fucking care. Most people have a life that exists beyond their monitor. As long as they can check their email and go to the few sites they frequent, THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT THEY ARE USING. They don't give a fuck about standards, they don't give a fuck about MS being 'evil', they don't give a fuck about any of this stupid fucking bullshit you moronic fucking geek.

          If
      • by Anonymous Coward
        This stuff, as a web developer, makes me kinda cranky. It's like, wee! i can do all kinds of fancy stuff (not fancy as in bloat, fancy as in streamlined and shiny) but hangon... looks like it won't work in ie... okay cut it all out since 90% clients are in ie. it's just another depressing factor in a loveless job...
    • by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:24AM (#9246224)
      The worst part? I think it's good news. If this is really true it gives Firefox a long time to catch up (market share wise). I've been using it for a couple of months and can't help but recommend it to everyone I know. It's a lot more stable, the tabbing system is wonderful, and you've got these customizable UIs that people used to using AOL IM and WinAmp should love.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Meanwhile we have to kiss web standards goodbye to please 90% of the public using IE.

      It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.

      But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more th

      • It's not that bad. You don't have to write non-standard code to get things to work in Internet Explorer, you just have to make sure you avoid the bits of the standards that are just plain bust or nonexistent in Internet Explorer. So basically, they are holding us back in a massive way, but not forcing us to violate standards.

        Web standards aren't just about writing valid markup. IE forces you to do workarounds which result in code which is bad practice from a semantic viewpoint.

        Another problem is the fact
    • If the majority of web sites start adopting these standards first, the browsers will have to change to support them, not the other way around. Remember how IE got so prominent in the first place (apart from being integrated into the OS), is all those sites that had best viewed with Internet Explorer. So change the game on Microsoft and the mindset of the general public. If enough sites have Best Viewed with Firefox, Opera, etc. (and that is indeed true) then people will start realising that Internet Explore
    • But the fact is Microsoft is keeping us from adopting things like CSS2, PNG and SVG more than anything else.

      I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

      How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.

      Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took S
      • by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:50AM (#9246921) Journal
        I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG

        Then you are a complete idiot and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

        Proper CSS2 allows at least 75% bandwidth savings serving up html, quicker rendering, easy user customizability, nicer / easier degradation, separation of content and design, etc. PNG would actually make the web much prettier, give more freedom to artists, save bandwidth in many ways, etc.

        Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?

        Are you insane? Why would MS need to "take Shockwave over" to do that, and what do you even mean by that? And isn't Flash usually already installed on most new machines anyway? What has that got to do with anything!?

      • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @10:23AM (#9247340) Journal
        I haven't noticed a need for CSS2 and PNG but SVG comes via a plugin. I don't see why you think that MS should support it natively.

        CSS2 makes web design a whole lot easier. You can properly separate content and presentation. Have the content generated in semantic markup by a script and then just change the CSS when you need to change the presentation.

        PNG is a nice lossless image format. It is more flexible than GIF and is not encumbered by patents (The GIF patent is still valid in some countries). In a browser that properly supports it, PNG allows a full alpha channel, which makes it possible to do some very nice effects.

        One of the best things about SVG is that it's XML, and so is part of you pages DOM. You can put the SVG directly into XHTML, and even control it from Javascript (or any other scripting mechanism that supports DOM). This makes it an incredibly flexible tool. If you render SVG using the Adobe plugin then the SVG content does not appear within the DOM tree.

        How many websites out there use it? Only one that I use regularly and it's not exactly something that 99.9% of others will use.

        No, most websites don't use it because if they did then IE users would not be able to view their site.

        Should MS be forced to integrate Flash into the browser just because some websites use it (you would all go fucking ballistic if they took Shockwave over to do so)?

        No. Flash is proprietary. CSS2 and SVG, however, are W3C standards and should be supported by any browser.

  • by Tribbin ( 565963 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:18AM (#9246187) Homepage
    To fresh up your mind:
    Here [slashdot.org]
  • by robslimo ( 587196 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:21AM (#9246203) Homepage Journal
    For a small company like Opera, the settlement is significant, I'd imagine. Not only did they get their main beef settled, they get a little cash infusion to boot.

    But these snippets from the article

    The deal marks the latest in a string of settlements from Microsoft, which is seeking to simplify its business by clearing up potentially damaging legal claims.

    and

    Microsoft has effectively abandoned significant browser development efforts.

    make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight? Why should they make an effort to clean up their legal image when it didn't seem to phase them for such a long time?

    I don't doubt that whatever they've got planned, history indicates it's probably part of a well thought out business or marketing plan. Other thoughts?
    • They will be completely integrating the browser with the operating system. If I understand it correctly, their 'Avalon' project will join the split between web and native applications. This means that applications written for this new version of Windows will look and feel exactly the same regardless of whether they are running on your local machine, or being run from a 'web server', or some mixture of the two.

      That's where they're concentrating their energy, and the system is likely to be so intertwined wit
    • by zeugma-amp ( 139862 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:46AM (#9246378) Homepage

      make me wonder, what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve? (Other than continued 'integration' with their operating systems.) They cornered the browser market and now they'll give it up without a fight? Why should they make an effort to clean up their legal image when it didn't seem to phase them for such a long time?

      They don't have anything up their sleeves. Microsoft saw Netscape (and other browsers in general) as a threat because of the hype surrounding concepts of the 'browser being the platform'. They feared (rightly) that if true system independence were to come about due to people using a browser as their portal to software, that their windows monopoly would be threatened in some way.

      When microsoft sees a threat, no matter how small to it's cash cow of windows, it reacts violently. Now that they feel (again probably rightly) that browsers are not a threat to them, they won't waste a moment of a programmer's time to fix IE defects because they understand that it no longer matters. The majority of uninformed users will continue to use IE no matter how ancient and clunky it gets compared to other browsers out there because the vast majority don't have any idea that Mozilla or Opera even exist, much less how massively superior to microsoft's offerings they are.

      • On the mobile phone Opera is a very real player. In fact that is where opera makes it money. Not from PC browsers (wich most people pirate anyway) but from licenses sold to phone makers.

        Just try one of the non-ms "modern" phones. Shouldn't be too hard. Most are non-ms. All the nokia ones I seen had an opera browser.

        This is something MS doesn't like. It has tried everything it could outside murder to get a foothold in the mobile phone market without success. PDA's are slightly more succesfull but its old r

    • But these snippets from the article

      The deal marks the latest in a string of settlements from Microsoft,

      Just to comment on it: I didn't see much evidence in the article it really was MS behind this, but I agree that it is hard to see any others settle for something howcome would feel so strongly for.

      what has Microsoft got up its collective sleeve?

      In my post a few days ago [slashdot.org] I argued that the browser as we know it is going to be rather irrelevant some day. It's not going to be a standalone app

  • by Bill Dimm ( 463823 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:24AM (#9246217) Homepage
    As this article [businessweek.com] in BusinessWeek points out, Microsoft is trying to settle and partner rather than fight in court.
    • Just the oposite of IBM's strategy for dealing with small companies. Crush and make an example of them. Oh wait IBM has traded it's secretive ways(almost) for honesty and Open Standards. If Microsoft switches what will we do then?
    • Microsoft is freeing up its legal team for the upcomming patent wars. They don't want their legal team tied up in pointless and counterproductive litigation which does not have the effect of destroying open source.

      At one time, it was worth fighting companies like Opera. Bleed their cash. Steal their ideas. Sabatoge their product, etc.

      But now, it is much higher priority for the legal team to be ready for the new patent wars.
  • Not a good thing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Monoman ( 8745 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:26AM (#9246239) Homepage
    Settlements like this should not be kept secret. Even more so when publicly held companies are involved ... and fo damn sure when one of the companies has been found guilty of predatory practices.

    Maybe MS's sentence should have included banning them from private deals and settlements.
  • Windows Update (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ann Elk ( 668880 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:27AM (#9246240)

    Does this mean that Mozilla can now sue Microsoft because Windows Update only works with IE >= 5? When I try to access Windows Update using Mozilla 1.6, I get the following:

    You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.

    Download the latest version of Internet Explorer

    Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.

    If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center.

    I suppose the last sentence is some concession to those of us who run non-IE browsers. However, the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...

    • Re:Windows Update (Score:5, Informative)

      by MoonBuggy ( 611105 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:36AM (#9246302) Journal
      No, that's a different thing entirely. Windows Update uses ActiveX controls to work out what you need and those are only compatible with IE, as I'm sure you know. There's no legal precident saying they must rewrite code if another browser doesn't support it.

      What they did to Opera was deliberately send broken code in order to make it appear that the browser was faulty. The code sent to IE worked fine in Opera but MS went out of their way to alter that code when sending it to Opera. If you went to MSN using a IE5 browser agent string in Opera it would've worked fine. If you went to Windows Update using that same browser agent string in Mozilla you wouldn't get an error but I very much doubt that the site would work.
      • Re:Windows Update (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Ann Elk ( 668880 )

        One could argue (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that depending on ActiveX controls is also "...deliberately sending broken code".

        My point: Microsoft has been forced to open up their browser interfaces (to make it easier to run "competing" browsers, etc). Given that, it is inappropriate for Windows Update to require IE.

    • Re:Windows Update (Score:2, Insightful)

      by peragrin ( 659227 )
      That's because Windows Update uses those "security holes" in IE to pass the required information back and forth. Can you imagine MS accendently publishing a patch that broke Windows update by fixing a security hole in IE. How long would we laugh?
  • by tiger99 ( 725715 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:32AM (#9246266)
    .... that Opera did not persue this one through the cours, as it would have alerted the courts to the fact that the Criminal Monopoly is continuing to ignore earlier judgments. That is contempt of court.

    Nothing short of criminal prosecution, and jail sentences for Gates, Ballmer and a few others, will ever make these guys behave properly. They have a consistent track record.

  • Reinvent a company (Score:2, Interesting)

    by octal666 ( 668007 )
    The question now is this money is enough, if not for Microsoft to be punished, at least for Opera to repair the damage done.

    Is 12M$ enough money for a company like Opera to reinvent themselves?

    With the IE as the widespread browser, and with that money to take a break, IMHO Opera should think about opening other branches, maybe give a try to open source solutions.
    • 12M$ is probably enough for the people running Opera to get out of the browser business and retire.
    • Opera re-invent themselve? Why? They are doing fine. The PC is a sideline to them. Basically they are supplying a browser for every platform out there. Something no other browser is capable off.

      Their money comes from bulk licenses sold to phone makers and similar. Not from consumer licenses.

      Sure it would be nice if opera was a real contender on the PC market but how do you compete with a free product when quality is something only tiny percentage of customers understand? Even mozilla and its offspring is

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:33AM (#9246275)
    MS is having to pay out all the time. They always have since their inception. Can anyone count the number of settlements that have gone against MS? (Read, MS paid out) relative to the number that have favored MS?

    I'm happy for Opera, but this really is just business as usual for MS.

    Nice job US DOJ, you really reined them in.
  • by EaterOfDog ( 759681 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:35AM (#9246296)
    1 Write good software
    2 Wait for MIcrosoft to steal it or disable it
    3 Profit!
  • by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:49AM (#9246394) Journal
    I am not impressed by the quality of CNET's journalism. Here's what they have to say about why they state this as fact, instead of using language like "it looks like" or "we have reason to believe":
    "a source indicated that the payment came from Microsoft in order to close the books on a clash over obscure interoperability problems"
    I couldn't find any information about who this "source" is supposed to be in the article. So they are basically portraying someone's assumptions as fact. Bad journalism.

    But this is not the only case of bad journalism. Another example:

    "Opera is looking to move past the PC to distribute its Web browser on devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants
    This is just wrong. Opera isn't just "looking to move past the PC". They have been doing this for years. Just a quick look on opera.com shows press releases about this back in 2000 [opera.com]. In 2001, the Sharp Zaurus [opera.com] had Opera on it.

    Now, I am not saying that it cannot possibly be Microsoft. It probably is. But this is pure speculation, and CNET is portraying it as fact. And they seem to focus on one single site, rather than the on-going problems with Opera and Microsoft sites due to browser sniffing and singling out Opera, and Microsoft's blatant lies about Opera in the press [slashdot.org].

  • by Anonymous Coward
    "IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards,
    because Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.


    Let me put it this way: Eh?
    Does this imply that for 1 out of 10 IE doesn't deliver content? Well, not that I'd wonder about that. It's M$ software after all...
  • Continue Anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by denlin ( 733557 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:49AM (#9246399) Journal
    Shutterfly, the online photo store backed by Netscape co-founder Jim Clark, does not support any version of Opera or Mozilla browsers, according to a warning [com.com] displayed on the site this week.

    this is one of my gripes about some websites. i noticed shutterfly has a "Click Next if you wish to skip future warnings and use Shutterfly with this unsupported browser." great, i can make the choice to puruse a sub-"standard" website if i still want to. sometimes i think they forget that they are offering goods/services that i can find somewhere else.

  • by d3bruts1d ( 639027 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:51AM (#9246413) Homepage
    Last I checked, it had not been confirmed that MS is the one who paid the money to Opera Software. Bust since I read it on the internet, it must be true.
    "Reached by phone, Opera executives refused to name the company involved in the settlement or describe the nature of the legal claims, citing a confidentiality agreement."
  • by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:53AM (#9246433) Homepage
    tinfoil hat alert!

    yes, IE is quite secure in M$-windows desktop/laptop browser dominance. besides Opera there are a few other browsers for computers...... but the cell phone/PDA market is still up in the air. M$ has their own OS for cell phones and PDAs, and if they can show people that Opera's offerings for devices doesn't work so well, it may help their case. Add to the fact that EVERY Verizon DSL customer is now considered an MSN subscriber their numbers are growing (on paper).

    maybe i'm wrong, but unless it's something personal i would think Mozilla is still a bigger threat to IE than Opera in the PC realm. I would guess this is for some emerging market.... being cellphone/PDAs or some other embedded devices (cable boxes or whatever?).
  • Favoritism? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kragg ( 300602 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:00AM (#9246502) Journal
    IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards, because Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.

    I wonder what it delivers to the other 1 in 10?
  • by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:17AM (#9246612)
    What really sickens me is Opera gets almost half the settlement that Be, Inc. got (about $25 million).

    Now compare the two offenses. Screwing up a few Microsoft webpages for Opera users, vs. destroying a company with anti-trust tactics, such as squashing deals between Be and other OEM's (see: Hitachi)... Christ I could go on, but it's too depressing. Long live MacOS and PalmOS NG.
  • Hotmail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AlecC ( 512609 ) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @10:09AM (#9247172)
    Hotmail now works in Opera, which it didn't before. Surprise, surprise.
  • Fsck you Gill Bates. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @12:03PM (#9248785)
    Heh... Microsoft pays $12M to avoid a lawsuit? They know that their legal department could push anyone around for any length of time. Why, then, would they pay out instead of going to court? I think the answer is that they know it would be extremely easy for Opera to prove its claims (which are true, by the way, I use Opera and I know that a lot of Microsoft's pages break under Opera--they ID the browser and then the HTML sent, if you're using Opera, contains tags to screw up the page, so users will think that Opera is not a good browser, when in fact, it's the opposite--Opera ROCKS and Internet Exploder is a piece of dog poop... besides, this is Microsoft's oldest trick in the book, kind of like making Windows 3.1 crash intermittently if you're using DR-DOS, when in fact there was no technical reason that this should happen). So Microsoft is paying out because they know they will lose this one, and not only will they pay, they'll probably end up paying more, not to mention the legal costs.

    Opera. Because friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer. Or Windows. Or anything else that comes from Redmond.

    (Did I mention Opera works equally well on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS? It's a great piece of software. That's why I keep paying $40 (or however much it is) to put it on every computer I have, and I install the "free" (ad) version on every computer I set up for my friends and co-workers. And don't say you don't like the million billion toolbars it has. Just turn them all off and you've got a nice clean browser that renders all pages.)

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...