Microsoft Fined €561 Million For Non-compliance With EU Browser Settlement 401
Seeteufel writes "Microsoft's failure to comply with an antitrust settlement about browser choice has severe consequences. The European Commissioner for Competition Almunia set a fine of €561 million (~$732 million) for the unprecedented break of agreement. Microsoft admitted its mistakes and offered further concessions."
A pretty costly bug it seems. From the EC press release: "This is the first time that the Commission has had to fine a company for non-compliance with a commitments decision. In the calculation of the fine the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, the need to ensure a deterrent effect of the fine and, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that Microsoft has cooperated with the Commission and provided information which helped the Commission to investigate the matter efficiently."
Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Informative)
Look up Apples two year warranty obligations under EU law. They really, really, really don't like it and make the customer believe it's only one year.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:4, Informative)
Look up Apples two year warranty obligations under EU law. They really, really, really don't like it and make the customer believe it's only one year.
That's because Apple has no warranty obligations under EU law for the devices it produces. It has obligations for devices that it sells to consumers, and that would include cameras, hard drives, cables etc. that you buy from Apple that are not made by Apple. Whoever sells you a product made by anyone, including Apple, has obligations towards you.
Let me repeat that: The manufacturer has no obligations. The shop selling to the consumer has.
It's worse (Score:3)
The browsers are not just bundled but Apple doesn't even allow other browser engines like Firefox's Gecko to run on the iDevices. The maximum you can do as a browser maker is to put a different skin on top of the Safari renderer. Chromebooks don't even allow browsers.
That means there won't even be a Netscape equivalent to complain about bundling because alternate browsers are just plain banned. Software freedom and choice is more dead in the post-PC world than it was in the PC world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bingo. You can only buy apps THEY approve through THEIR store and effectively they won't allow third-party apps on their device at all without they get a cut.
It's WAY more anticompetitive than anything Microsoft has done recently. These days, Microsoft seems like the good guys. So what if competitor browsers don't come preconfigured? It takes a couple of minutes to download and install Firefox of Chrome or Safari or whatever other browser you want and set it up as the default browser on your system. T
Re: (Score:2)
Chromebooks don't even allow browsers.
ChromeOS doesn't allow ANY SOFTWARE to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely not true. Chrome for iOS almost certainly is not using the system provided WebKit since Google probably wants to provide their own JS implementation.
You should actually research your claims before throwing around words like "absolutely". Chrome for iOS does, in fact, use the system-provided WebKit, because that's the only thing that Apple will let you use - and, yes, it does mean that Chrome for iOS does not use V8 [anandtech.com].
There is also Opera Mini and several other browsers.
Opera Mini is allowed in the Store because it's not a full-fledged browser - in particular, it does not have a JavaScript interpreter; all JS is run on the server. JS is the real stumbling block for browsers - Apple doesn't allow any app that
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
If you believe that Apple or Google or any other company are a monopoly and are abusing their position, and you feel that you have been harmed by this, feel free to file a complaint with the European Competition Commission.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
Getting away with it makes you arrogant. You're forgetting over a decade ago in the US there was talk of breaking up Microsoft and they got a stiff fine. In the end the court largely threw in the towel. They had a stranglehold on PCs and personal computers in general. Microsoft crumbled from within not due to any court action and Apple finally started gaining a share of the personal computer market.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:4, Informative)
In the end the court largely threw in the towel
One of the first acts of the newly appointment George W DOJ was to throw in the towel on the US vs. Microsoft litigation, and give them a soft and warm pat on the wrist. Yep, that's the party that's against crony capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple developes and sell its own software system preinstalled in own computer system so they can do what ever they want.
Microsoft developes own software system and sell it to OEM what builds own computer system so Microsoft has applied different rules as OEM is dependant of Microsoft.
Microsoft is allowed to do what ever it wants with Surface as same rules apply to it as for Apple.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Google bundles the OS with the browser...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know a *lot* of Mac users, but most of the ones I know seem to stick to Safari, A couple use FireFox.
I'm not so bothered by the Desktop market. I'm more wondering - how can the App store model of Apple have a leg to stand on in the same court system that would allow this?
Note: I didn't add Google or MS mobile devices, because in the cases I've used them, there's always been at least 2 app stores on the phone/tablet, though that may have changed with Windows 8...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they could have fined up to 5 billion (the rule is something like 10% of total annual revenue, but don't quote me on that), so the fine can actually be considered "lenient". Why it's still so hefty is because, as the summary says, it's an unprecedented failure to comply with the agreement of the previous anti-trust case.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
re steep.
this can only happen if
1) you lose a gazillion battles and get fined
2) you agree to do a bunch of stuff as part of your settlement
3) you don't do it (in a significant way)
4) it gets noticed
You have to work pretty hard to get down to #4. The EU wants companies to take #2 extremely seriously.
MS fought tooth and nail to avoid the fines in #1. The EU commission wants to make 100% sure that if they fight a battle all the way through, and win it -then the company doesn't think they can just ignore the result and get a slap on the wrist.
This makes a pretty clear statement. "When you agree to do stuff - you'd better do it. It might even be worth paying someone on your staff (perhaps in the audit/compliance dept) to do a check once a month to make sure you are keeping your promises."
Re: (Score:3)
One full time employee doing nothing but checking for this compliance would have been an awful lot cheaper than paying the fine.
That's of course the idea. A fine this big suddenly turns "complying with the binding agreements we made" into a "business priority"
Frightening thought: If Microsoft actually realised this as well and _did_ hire one person to do nothing but check compliance with this one judgement (should be an easy job), someone has lost their job now.
If they did have a guy, it's possible he was just too far down the totem pole to actually do anything other than go "um didn't we say we'd do this?" and some random middle manager went "sounds like my department would lose money". The net effect should be to get Microsoft (and all other companies) to prick up their ears and get senior people involved in compliance, which is a g
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeaah that would be great!
Maybe we would see some development into Linux instead.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Funny)
I think I like that idea.
Microsoft can get even by not selling their stuff in Europe. Apple picks up part of the market. Linux gains a bit. Android gains some. ChromeOS gains some too. The various BSD distros. Maybe ecomstation and a few others gain. Sure, go ahead and convince Microsoft to stop selling. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me!
Re: (Score:3)
The EU was clear enough towards Microsoft, about implementing the browser choice, Microsoft then managed to have a "technical malfunction" for 14 months after the release of Win7 SP1.
Even if you believe even for a second(which I don't) that it was a honest mistake by Microsoft you can't expect to go free when you promise a Government to do something and then fail to comply for whatever reason. The only reason the fine is not
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Apple now have a larger financial base than MS... Seems they are grabbing money from the less rich, at this point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they have hopefully found a way to get big companies to listen to their rulings. Small fines won't affect companies like microsoft. 1billion fine might get the next company to think twice before trying to abuse a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Except what's the monopoly here? IE is bundled with it's own operating system. They don't block the competition from installing other browsers in the OS and never have block other browsers.
This is plainly a money grab by the EU.
Most windows users not only won't install a different web browser, they don't even know what one they use.
Go ask someone who doesn't work in IT what web browser they use. They will likely say 'I just click on the internet' or 'google'.
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Interesting)
You're generally wrong. A few years back, having failed countless times to get my mom off IE, I swapped the IE and Firefox icons on her desktop. As far as she can tell, she's still using the "blue e" to "go on the internet". I've had to use the very same trick on my mother-in-law and aunt (no sexism intended). The same applies to renaming "Libre/OpenOffice Writer" to Word, etc... To them, internet == blue e; bookmark manager == postit notes; lightweight text editor == MS Word
And there's NOTHING anyone can do about it! Ever!
Re:Can't believe their arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhh - the AGREEMENT that Microsoft entered into resulted FROM monopoly hearings. The charge here is that Microsoft VIOLATED that AGREEMENT. Whether Microsoft remains a monopoly or not, whether Microsoft blocks other browsers or not, has nothing to do with the fine.
Try this - get hauled into court for some rather minor charge. Marijuana possession would work. Plead with the judge to not jail your ass. Agree to any demand that he makes, so long as he doesn't send you to jail.
Then, after you've left the court room, fail to live up to the agreement that you made with that judge.
Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am certainly not a MS fan, but it seems to me that the EU has found a way to "grab money from the rich" with the ridiculous fines they have been handling out lately.
If you need money isn't it better to rob a rich company that makes cash by selling low quality products using predatory market practices, rather than a large number of citizens who don't have anything left to take?
Re: (Score:3)
Just how is it a pain to use other browsers or search engines on Windows 7?
Mean while in america (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mean while in america (Score:5, Interesting)
Has a fine like this *ever* been paid in the U.S. though in actuality?
It either gets fed to the appeals system which reduces it or ties the payment up for so long it's meaningless or it gets ignored and forgotten.
I can't remember one example of a company just paying the fine and moving on, actually. Does someone else here remember anything like this?
Re:Mean while in america (Score:5, Insightful)
Who ever said fines were supposed to be proportional to perceived severity of crime? Especially across different judicial systems.
Fines need to take account of ability to pay. And they also need to be designed to be of a size that will stop reoffending. GIven that Microsoft have reoffended, that's a good indication that the original fine wasn't big enough.
Re:Mean while in america (Score:5, Funny)
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords. Apparently laundering money for terrorists and drug lords is only 2.5 (roughly) times as bad as not complying with an EU court settlement.
Neither is as bad as sharing a song over bittorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords
I'm not particularly familiar with the case, but quite skeptical about US financial sanctions... The US isn't world police... and HSBC is an international bank with obligations to help their customers as best they can. That includes guiding money around US financial sanctions.
For crying out load, the US still has sanctions against Cuba. I'm not saying Cuba is the finest country on the surface of the planet. But they're hardly a threat to anybody.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm sure HSBC did some
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In America while laundering money for terrorists is considered a bad thing and a serious matter, that is being counterbalanced by the fact that it was a bank and bank's are not allowed to be seriously harmed - doing so would be more evil than funding those terrorists.
What would happen to you if you were caught handling $200 trillion of drug money? All you assets seized by the government and you spending the rest of your life in prison seems a likely outcome. When a bank does it? A fine (oh noes, their profi
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!!! The Universe just isn't fair. Who do we talk to about this?
Beginning to feel sorry for Microsoft. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a ridiculous suit in the first place. Every OS bundles core applications - including now web browsers. People never had an issue switching off of IE even with it installed by default and the decline in usage of IE had nothing to do with the anti-trust settlements.
All of this was a huge waste of time. There are far better targets out there to attack (like oil, banking, etc.) but they have better lobbyists.
Re: (Score:3)
People never had an issue switching off of IE
After Windows 95, it is basically impossible to "switch off". No matter what default browser you chose, IE was likely to pop up. And doing so it opened big security holes.
Re: (Score:3)
That uncertainty wasn't exactly Microsoft's fault. Developers were just retarded about how they would launch their own links. Many of them hardcoded launching IE because they were certain it was on the machine, rather than using any mechanism to launch a preferred browser.
Even today we still see this behavior and it's not always small developers who do it, which is shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them hardcoded launching IE because they were certain it was on the machine, rather than using any mechanism to launch a preferred browser.
Developers did it because MS encouraged them to. Thus reinforcing the lock in which is what the whole point of the EU complaint. Even if you went to a great deal of trouble to extirpate IE from your PC, you'd install some program and it would auomatically reinstall the fucking thing to take you to their fucking website or show you a help page. Or it would fail to install at all if you didn't let it.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them hardcoded launching IE because they were certain it was on the machine, rather than using any mechanism to launch a preferred browser.
Developers did it because MS encouraged them to. Thus reinforcing the lock in which is what the whole point of the EU complaint. Even if you went to a great deal of trouble to extirpate IE from your PC, you'd install some program and it would auomatically reinstall the fucking thing to take you to their fucking website or show you a help page. Or it would fail to install at all if you didn't let it.
The "integration" of IE/Trident in modern versions of Windows is exactly the same as the "integration" of Safari/Webkit on OS X. The rendering engine is a system control that the system and 3rd party apps depend on being there, and thus can't be "fully removed" (people making fun of this display technical ignorance). The browser front-end can though (and is then not used by the system), and you can install another browser that uses its' own rendering engine for web, but the built-in OS render control will s
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the security holes we've seen in the last several years, though, have been based on plugins and really don't depend on a particular browser.
I also have never seen IE pop up on my machine.
Re:Beginning to feel sorry for Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Well, perhaps, but isn't that the point of a punishment? To punish? Punishments can never happen at the same time as the offence, so they have to happen after! MS have got off pretty lightly really, considering the damage they managed to do in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox is still popular amongst developers (but practically no-one else).
Then either 23.18% of people browsing the interwebs are developers, or you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I use IE because my employer needs to ensure that we don't have the tools we need to do our job.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody actually choose a search engine? Type the search in the address field seems the normal technique - and on a stock IE that will use bing, on chrome google, and with firefox I would suspect google too.
a bug? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There is virtually ZERO chance/probability that this was a Microsoft bug.
Really? Given that the browser box was added to Windows 7 RTM, and then wasn't there in SP1, you don't think that the issue would have been that somebody checked it into the RTM branch, but then didn't know they were responsible for merging it into the SP1 branch? Different teams will have different merging policies, and given how one off the browser box is/was, I suspect it may not have been done by a main Windows developer.
Re: (Score:2)
Different teams will have different merging policies, and given how one off the browser box is/was, I suspect it may not have been done by a main Windows developer.
I don't think it was supposed to be much of a "one off":
Microsoft initially argued that the move benefited users, but after the European Commission issued a preliminary report suggesting the firm had abused its position, the company agreed to offer a choice of browser until at least 2014 to avoid risking a fine.
However, this option was missing from its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 released in 2011 and it continued to be absent for 14 months.
During that time, Microsoft reported it was still complying with the ag
Re: (Score:2)
There is virtually ZERO chance/probability that this was a Microsoft bug.
Virtually zero? Is that like virtually spotless?
There is every possibility that this was a bug. But not testing to make sure that the bug didn't affect their contractual and legal obligations wasn't a bug.
Oh man, this had to happen sooner or later (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure is a *fine* story!
I will always vote up puns. ALWAYS.
that will keep Greece afloat for a month (Score:2)
what about the windows RT lock down and the win 8 (Score:5, Interesting)
what about the windows RT lock down and the win 8 app store how will that go under EU rules?
The gravity of the situation? (Score:2)
the gravity and duration of the infringement
Given that the choice to use multiple free pieces of software is such a grave situation I'd expect the fine to be 0.
Really, it's kind of lame at this point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly it once was. Furthermore, Apple is doing far more egrarious violations. What about the fact that Apple refused to convert to microUSB with the new iPhone 5. Where is there fine.
At least Microsoft lets me install an alternative browser (crApple, did their darndest to prevent even that)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly it once was.
Eh, that's not true. Microsoft has always underpinned its racket with secret contracts with OEMs. That is as true today as it ever was. And Microsoft is just as evil as it ever was, the only difference is, the forces arrayed against it have grown stronger.
Bug? Not even MS is _that_ incompetent. (Score:5, Insightful)
They tested whether they could get away with it and arranged some (fairly transparent) level of deniability. It is really simple: This feature was on the "must work" list for all releases. Such items cannot simply be overlooked unless you are really, really, really incompetent. Not even MS manages to reach this level and certainly not for that long.
Well, now they know that they cannot get away with more of this immoral and economically damaging (to all but them) business practice. I also think the EU put the fine on the low end, even given their "cooperation".
What everybody forgets... (Score:3)
... reading the posts here is that Microsoft went out of their way to make sure IE in any form was integral to the operation of Windows.
So MS _deliberately_ made sure that other browser run worse than IE on a Windows system.
Then, after the original court order, they couldn't really backtrack to what they insisted that 'IE cannot be removed' and offer a choice of browsers to use.
Re: (Score:2)
How can they allow software which doesn't exist to run on they're operating system? You'd probably have been better off attempting a car analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Informative)
This was done under EU anti-monopoly legislation. Microsoft was at the time judged to have a monopoly share of the PC OS market. And as such they couldn't use that monopoly to leverage advantage into the web browser market.
Since neither Google nor Apple have monopoly shares in any OS platform, they should not and cannot be required to do this.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
"Oh, Mr Murderer, you're not currently killing anyone? Well then be on your way, you little scamp!"
Re: (Score:2)
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
I'm not saying that the time for the remedy is definitely over. Windows market share for PCs is still dangerously high. But it's on the wane, and if it's not past time for the remedy yet, it soon will be.
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
not necessary now doesn't mean that it didn't happen, of which they were found guilty. The fact that even after they were found guilty they continued to let it happen and denied it, is why they are now seeking this to be a deterrent.
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
What issue? OSX also uses UEFI. So there's no monopoly there. That the OSS community don't like UEFI does not make it a monopoly issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about OSes that don't even allow other browsers to be installed on them? Are they exempt from this type of ruling?
Yes yes, goddammit yes. The ruling was to attempt to correct *abuse of monopoly*. Bundling browsers (or anything) isn't in itself illegal, but using one monopoly (OS) to leverage another (browser) *is*.
Just because this isn't a problem anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it. Punishments must still happen for past actions.
Re: (Score:2)
It, by itself is not the bad thing.
The bad thing is when you use your dominance in one area (desktop OSes and Office suites) to dominate other markets to the point of harm to both the competition and to end users.
This can be seen as a requirement to use MSIE in order to use Outlook Web Access. Though this wasn't, to my knowledge, used in the case against Microsoft, it is a strong example of how Microsoft pushed its dominance into other areas to the harm and exclusion of others. This is antitrust.
Imagine i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh cut the amount Samsung is obligated to pay Apple by about $450.5 million, or nearly 43%, to $598.9 million.
And Microsoft is fined $732 million for not complying with a court order / ruling?
You're comparing a civil suit in one country to a criminal fine in another. Why bother comparing, they're completely different things.
Re: (Score:2)
I've no problems with them doing this to MS - though I wouldn't call that a small find (maybe a touch exorbitant) I still wish they'd go after Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Go after Apple for what? They do not have a monopoly in any market.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have a monopoly OR an antitrust settlement to break.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing shit is not necessarily illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other shit apple is doing, that have nothing to do with monopoly.
Well then they are just a member of a cartel of companies that bundle a browser with their operating systems. It is still the same to the consumer; when EVERY company does the same thing then all together they are a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws regarding monopolies and anti-competitive behavior are more complex than the simple dictionary definition of "monopoly". Microsoft was convicted of abusing a monopoly position, and now has to deal with the results of that conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties in the (root of most evil) 2-party system are effectively identical from the standpoint of corporations.
Voting against the 'incumbent' but for the other duopoly party doesn't give corporations any reason to think anything will change, so they don't adjust behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties in the (root of most evil) 2-party system are effectively identical from the standpoint of corporations.
Mainly because of how fund-raising works. And now the GOP are all ra-ra about citizens-vs-united, and the campaign financing is even more susceptible to the corruption that turns congress-critters into corporate whipping boys.
There is a solution to the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
For Security!
No, I'm serious. Vague handwaving about "security" seems to make all kinds of human rights abuses "okay." So UEFI secure boot is clearly good for everyone. I mean, it has "secure" right in the name! That must make it good! We should all thank Microsoft for making our BIOS's "secure"! After all, once the BIOS is "secure," we can use it to make the whole system secure! Right? Right....?
Microsoft can get away with UEFI Secureboot right now because it's for security. But it happens to coin
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are, and so is every other person who's already posted the same thing as you.
Microsoft were referred to the EU Competition Commission due to a complain by Opera. They were found to hold a monopoly on desktop Operating Systems. They were found to be using this monopoly to illegally extend their monopoly into another market, namely web browsers. The original action (being forced to provide Browser Choice) was intended to address their illegal action. Microsoft subsequently ignored this, for 14 months, all the time claiming that they were in compliance. This fine is a result of their actions in ignoring a previous agreement with the EU.
You can stamp your feet and whine all you like, but that's the law and those are the facts.
Apple are not expected to comply with the same rules before they have not been referred to the EU Competition Commission and thus legally there is no monopoly status, and therefore can not be using that monopoly to extend their market in other areas.
If you believe that Apple are a monopoly and that they are harming consumers through their actions relating to that monopoly, please feel free to complain to the EU Competition Commission.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the law. They don't write this stuff for your benifit you know. I hope Microsoft never sends a red cent. As someone else has mentioned already, Internet Explorer is a minority browser. More people use Safari than Internet Explorer. Being forced by the government to provide alternatives to a failing product that you're desperately trying to improve is like having salt rubbed in the wound.
Here's a song for you [youtube.com]. Remember it and sing it loud when the bureaucrats zero in on you and demand payment for bre
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling comes from an another era, back when Microsoft was guilty of abusing it's position.
They no longer have that position to abuse, but they still weren't compliant with a court order.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Linux dists with Firefox and I suppose Android may have a standard browser to.
Microsoft were abusing their position to ensure other browsers couldn't be bundled as part of the OEM software builds distributed with new PCs. PC makers were literally not permitted to add any other browsers. See this US Dept. of Justice link, section V.C.2 for a summary [justice.gov]. This was Microsoft's strategy for winning the browser wars against Netscape Navigator, and was the reason Netscape died out.
Then they integrated their Internet Explorer browser into the operating system so deeply that you can't actuall
Re: (Score:2)
"This is different from Linux distros distributing Firefox as part of their bundle for a number of reasons - chief of which is that Firefox isn't made by the Linux Foundation, it's a Mozilla product. "
Moreover, even if products made by the Linux Foundation and Mozilla were made by the same group, they still wouldn't be violating anti-monopoly statutes in Europe or the U.S. by bundling simply because the products are not "products" in an economic sense (though they certainly have an economic impact). They ar
Re: (Score:2)
bundling an "app store" into Windows 8 then designing the OS to refuse certain local API features to products that haven't been sold through Microsoft's own store, no other vendor can or has been given the chance to setup their own store or is able to offer products that can utilise those APIs without restriction, the customer (lol) cannot shop anywhere else, effectively making the OS a 2 tier system, fully featured applications or those that haven't paid MS a fee . a prime case of a monopoly abuse, nice try
I'm looking around and I can't see Win8 having a significant percent of the market (maybe I can't see because it's night time, but anyway...) what monopoly are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm looking around and I can't see Win8 having a significant percent of the market (maybe I can't see because it's night time, but anyway...) what monopoly are you talking about?
The one that will exist once it becomes difficult to buy a PC with Windows 7, more and more new software/upgraded requires Windows 8 and the legions of Windows 7 and XP users sigh, give up and upgrade to Windows 8.
The one that means that so many people are putting up with the horrible ribbon interface in Office because they need to be able to exchange files reliably with other Office users.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it go towards something applaudable like technology for education, or technology for the unprivileged, or will it go to pay off the lawyers, and change the office furniture (including the windows shades ;)?
Keep PIGS afloat for a couple of days longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:does this even hurt them, though? (Score:4, Insightful)
IE6 lock-in is still causing harm now, over a decade after it was first inflicted on us.
Re:does this even hurt them, though? (Score:4, Insightful)
IE6 lock-in is still causing harm now, over a decade after it was first inflicted on us.
Surely the majority of the blame for that should go to companies like Netscape for not providing a decent alternative for such a long time. The beginning of the fall of Internet Explorer came with the release of Firefox.
Of course, you could say that Opera was around during that period, but even today when more and more people find alternatives to the bundled browser nobody hardly anybody chooses Opera.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely the majority of the blame for that should go to companies like Netscape for not providing a decent alternative for such a long time.
lol!
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
Re: (Score:3)
IE6 was a disaster from a technological point of view, but Microsoft sure got a lot of vendor lock-in from it!!!
I don't think that it was that bad, and it was still better than anything else available at the time. As much as I hated the concept of Active-X, the technology did fill a need and was used quite a lot - hence the lock-in with company's Intranets, etc.
It was a huge pain in the arse when it was disabled though, as almost every page load caused a prompt to appear to warn that Active-X was off.
Re:does this even hurt them, though? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Where by "nobody" you mean Google and Mozilla and Opera, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So by "business" you mean "source of money" as opposed to "useful activity"?
That's a pretty narrow definition.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that if you or I came to an agreement with a court based on a crime we'd committed and then "accidentally overlooked" adhering to that agreement, we'd be nailed for it, so I don't see why Microsoft should get off just because they're a corporation rather than a person (which is still the case outside the US as far as I'm aware).
The fine is not for the crime, it's for breaching the agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
And I'm not saying don't hit MS hard. But this is 732 Million dollars for a browser infraction. At a time where the reality is the citizens of Europe do not have a broswer monopoly problem. Its fucking lunacy.
Not really. Microsoft was found guilty a while ago, a fine was calculated, and the fine was reduced because Microsoft agreed to do certain things. They didn't, so they have to pay the additional fine.
It doesn't matter that the actual problem has gone away. There are many people in jail for murder who haven't killed anyone for many years.
What is with all the shills on slashdot today? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft was convicted and lost the appeal. If you were on parole and violated it they would nail you even if it was an accident!
It isn't fair when a human on parole forgets some legal detail and is nailed. That's 1 person who is not a lawyer trying to continue living their life. Microsoft is a large number of people with their own law firms who are paid to deal with such things. ZERO EXCUSES for almost any human (except the politically connected) and they can have reasonable excuses; Microsoft doesn't.
Just because they are a corporation (that is, a person in the USA) doesn't mean they should get special treatment.
The fact the EU can even fine them a decent amount shows they can't just bribe their way out of the legal system; like in the USA... Weak punishments just become part of doing business, nothing changes - the whole purpose is to force compliance!