back to article EC: Microsoft didn't honour browser-choice commitment

Microsoft has failed to comply with its commitments to offer people the chance to ditch Internet Explorer, the European Commission has said in a preliminary Statement of Objections that it has fired off to Microsoft HQ. From 2009, Microsoft has been legally obliged to show EU Windows users a "choice screen" so they can decide …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ya pays yer money ya makes yer browser choice

    I only saw this screen the other day when I was using the other half's laptop which was new last Xmas.

    Found a 'Choose a Browser' link on the desktop. Ironically this fires up an IE window.

    The list of browsers had the usual (IE,FF,Chrome,Opera...) but also had a number that I had never heard of and installed just to look at!

    It also mentions that while IE is not pinned to the dock... I mean, taskbar, it is available on the start menu.

    1. Shagbag
      Thumb Up

      Repeat Offender

      They just don't get it in Redmond. They're a repeat offender. Hit 'em with the full 10% of revenue fine. They deserve it. Arrogant shits.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hope the EU crashes and burns.

    This is ridiculous. IE is no longer in a monopoly position. Where is the EU when it comes to software choices with Apple products? This whole issue is about taking free money from an American company and taking it for themselves.

    1. hitmouse

      The EU can file this with the Media Player fiasco. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on providing Windows SKUs without media support, and you can count the buyers on the fingers of one hand. Even the EU itself wouldn't buy it.

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      "IE is no longer in a monopoly position."

      Firstly, *IE* was not the monopoly that Microsoft were trying to extend. That was Windows, and by the standards set by law, MS still have a monopoly in that market.

      Secondly, since when does your liability for past criminal activity lapse as soon as that activity ceases to be illegal?

      1. Matt 21

        To add to the point

        MS were found guilty at the time and ordered to take certain actions which they haven't done (not in full). They also appealed and did everything they could to delay things in the first place.

        So, while it is true that IE market share is fairly small today, the "punishment" is in response to MS actions and IE's position at the time of the case.

        As for accusations of the EU taking US money...... hello Mr Pot, this is Mr Kettle, are you aware of your colour?

      2. Lewis Mettler
        Stop

        commingling the OS and IE remains illegal

        It remains illegal for Microsoft to commingle the OS and IE. No settlement of any kind changes the law.

        Microsoft appealed the decision finding them to be in violation of the federal antitrust laws in the States. The appeal (based on commingling) was denied. Did not even want to hear about it.

        And Microsoft tried to just ignore their obligations in the EU acting dumb and stupid.

        Well, Microsoft is run by dumb and stupid people. But, not so dumb as to actually believe themselves.

      3. kain preacher

        Criminal? I was never aware that MS was hauled in front of criminal court.

    3. Lewis Mettler
      Stop

      just another Microsoft employee

      Just another Microsoft employee wishing laws intentionally broken by Microsoft did not exist.

      Do you really think anyone at Microsoft is so stupid to not understand their obligation? Maybe the AC that posted above. But, certainly not any decision maker.

    4. Adrian Midgley 1
      Thumb Down

      There;d be a reason for IE no longer being a monopoly

      and this useful action is to maintain that reason.

    5. FordPrefect
      Thumb Down

      It wasn't IE's dominant position that was the cause of the browser choice screen. It was Microsoft's abuse of its dominant position in the OS market that forced the commission to act. Competition law is pretty much the same all over including in the US and it bans a company with a monopoly in one market from using that monopoly to push others out. This even includes for example not allowing companies to use profits from a monopoly in one market to use predatory pricing to try and gain a monopoly in another.

      This is a good thing otherwise microsoft would be a monopoly for everything computer related now. Instead of just in the desktop OS market, and presumably in the office software market.

  3. Lee Dowling Silver badge

    Damn right

    Technical problem or not, you were told to do something by a court and DIDN'T BOTHER to monitor that you were in compliance. For 18 months. You literally just thought "Oh, that'll do, we don't need to check". At one of the world's largest companies, where you could probably pay someone to sit all day installing Windows 7 (if you don't already do this indirectly, I'd be amazed - do MS not install their own operating system?) and check that the window that's supposed to come up does on various types of hardware and connection.

    If they get fined, as they should, it's nothing to do with the EU being hard on them, or whatever technical problems they had, or anything to do with the actual case that caused it - it's just total non-compliance and ignorance of that non-compliance over an ENORMOUS period of time after you've been ordered by a court to do something. I'd even have sympathy if you'd notified the court on day 1 that there was something wrong and you were working on getting it going, but couldn't. But 18 months of NOT BEING BOTHERED to check you were compliant, not even the lawyer who handled it, or the CEO they told, or the compliance officer they put in charge of that - NOBODY bothered to spot they weren't in compliance until they were told by someone else 18 months later.

    Charge them double, for wilfully violating a court order by failing to check they were ever in compliance with it, or not even having a process to check they were.

    Disgusting bit of incompetence and ineptitude that courts tend to not look upon kindly. Would any other company get away with it if they were told by a court to do something (e.g. cut off PirateBay) and never bothered over 18 months to check that their filter was working as the court orders (the ineffectiveness of the filter itself is neither here nor there, so long as you do what the court ordered)? No, they wouldn't. And nor should MS.

    1. hitmouse

      Re: Damn right

      "do MS not install their own operating system"

      Employees get it preinstalled.

      The ever-present problem with Microsoft (and Google, Apple, et al) is that staff transfer quickly and there is no handover of responsibilities. Add to that "non-USA blindness" and Ballmer's incapacity to learn from this pattern, and it will keep on happening.

      Nevertheless I'm surprised that it took the EU 18 months to notice that it wasn't working. Unless of course this was policed by French bureaucrats, in which case this would be a speed record.

      1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

        Re: Damn right

        "Preinstalled"? Then someone, somewhere in Microsoft installed it for them. And someone, somewhere was writing the code for the installers and (presumably) testing them. And someone, somewhere wrote the code for the window that was supposed to pop up and (presumably) testing it. And someone, somewhere was installing it on lots of new hardware from disk to check things like disk images, hardware, installers, drivers, etc. worked as expected on bare hardware. And someone, somewhere was writing internationalisation data for the installers and (presumably) testing it. And someone, somewhere was presumably testing slipstreamed installs, PXE installs, "first-time" applications, and a range of other things.

        And MS employees are allowed to install any OS they like on their PC's, if previous articles are to be believed, and thus they would have been installing it somewhere all the time, given the number of employees.

        To even try to claim that Microsoft weren't installing their own product would be hilarious for them. And if they weren't, it leads right into wilful violations and inadequate processes to monitor those violations.

        "We did what the court asked last time."

        "Did you?"

        "We don't know, we never bothered to check."

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Re: Damn right

          "…and (presumably) testing them."

          I assume you're either joking or have never been near a windows computer. Noone who's used microsoft products would think they'd been tested.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            No, I am not bald! [Was: Re: Damn right]

            "Noone who's used microsoft products would think they'd been tested."

            In fairness the very same thing can be said about products in every single ecosystem.

            Using all the hairs on my head I still could not count the number of open source products I have downloaded over the years only to see glaring SQL injection vulnerabilities, gaping holes and a mass of ridiculous assumptions and fails within said code.

            It's not just Microsoft that are capable of producing shite code - shite code is everywhere.

            1. nematoad

              Re: No, I am not bald! [Was: Damn right]

              "shite code is everywhere"

              You may well be right, but at least with FOSS you have the right to get at the source code and see for yourself.

              Oh, and as you seem to know a bit about programming did you file a bug report to the devs. of the applications concerned?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: No, I am not bald! [Was: Damn right]

                "You may well be right, but at least with FOSS you have the right to get at the source code and see for yourself."

                Absolutely. That's just one reason why I like it.

                "Oh, and as you seem to know a bit about programming did you file a bug report to the devs. of the applications concerned?"

                No. Not unless it was a one, two or three-liner. You see some FOSS code just needs throwing away and starting again from scratch. But hey, I'm not perfect and wrote some real stink in my early days too, no doubt as senility sets in later in life, it will start to smell again too :)

        2. MortisDei
          Holmes

          Re: Damn right

          they probably just have a disk image they pre-created, and just load it up onto the machines as needed. all the software and everything else all at once, so it would never have been picked up anyway. besides i suspect that you'd be frowned upon for using a non-MS product

      2. Lord Voldemortgage

        I'm astonished

        That the sheer number of complaints from users demanding that the browser choice annoyance was reinstated didn't spur both Microsoft and the EU into swift action.

        -

        Still, as you say they were supposed to do something, didn't do it for whatever reason and so will face some sort of penalty as a result, even if no one really cared.

      3. toadwarrior

        Re: Damn right

        I'm sure someone in the EU noticed but it's easier to claim the fine when it's been over a year compared to it being a month.

    2. James Micallef Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Damn right

      @Lee Dowling - 100% correct, it was MS's responsability to check their compliance.

      It also raises a question for me: did no-one in the EU justice system bother to check that MS was in compliance of their judgement? Or is the EU internal bureaucracy so tangled that it took 18 months for the message to get from the front-line staff up to the higher levels?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What if folks hadn't monitored their organisation's Windows licenses?

      @Lee Dowling

      Technical problem or not, you were told to do something by a court and DIDN'T BOTHER to monitor that you were in compliance. For 18 months.

      Hefty penalties abound for customers not abiding agreements with MS.

      It works both ways.

  4. wowfood

    Just wish

    They'd do the same thing to Apple. No version of an app which Apple already has made? I mean really, if that isn't anti competative then I don't know what is. No wonder china is one of Apples biggest markets, they have the exact same outlook.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just wish

      Yes, Apple is highly anti-competitive, but they don't have a monopoly on any of the operating products, i.e. music players or smartphones. So, unlike Microsoft, Apple can't be accused of using an existing monopoly position to exploit another market. If Android and Windows Phone become as minor a player in the smartphone market as OSX and UNIX are in the operating system market, then there would be an argument that Apple is exploiting their monopoly position and legal remedies would become available.

      As far as I know, there are no laws about creating and controlling your own market. If only because until recently it was impossible to create new markets on a whim. Software offers the possiblity of creating a new market for each device or platform. Instead of writing new laws, we've used existing contract law to allow the device designers to define the structure of the market and terms for participation in it. Whether this is in the best interests of all participants may be up for grabs. It certainly seems that it is in the best interests of the device designers and not the consumers'.

    2. ThomH

      Re: Just wish

      Then the correct conclusion is that you don't know what anticompetitive is.

      Microsoft were selling one kind of product, very successfully. Netscape came along and started selling a separate kind of product, very successfully. Microsoft used the money and resources from the one kind of product to force Netscape from the market. In short they used a dominant position in one market to distort competition in another. Actual damage was done to real consumers.

      Apple doesn't have a dominant position to abuse. It hasn't used resources in one market to force anyone out of another. The competition for everything it does is very healthy. If you, as a consumer, don't like the way Apple is working then there are lots of other options with similar market clout. The free market is functioning.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    browser choice?

    They have a choice, download the browser you want. At least you get the option, unlike with iOS.

    1. Select * From Handle
      Thumb Up

      Re: browser choice?

      I personally think this should be forced on all OS's or none at all... that includes iOS(full browsers, not safari re skinned) OSX, android, and all linux distro's.... but i somehow don't think this will happen.

      1. Philippe

        Re: browser choice? from Handle

        I have Opera, Chrome and Skyfire installed on my iPhone.

        None of them is a skinned version of safari. What are you talking about?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: browser choice? from Handle

          That may be so, but Select * From Handle's comment that this choice screen 'should be forced on all OS's or none at all' is a valid point worthy of consideration nonetheless.

        2. Fuzz

          Re: browser choice? from Handle

          Chrome and Skyfire are front ends for the iOS webkit browser, neither of them is a fully functioning browser.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: browser choice?

        You obviously have never used a Linux distros, aside from IE and Safari there are a load of alternative browsers available.

        All you have to do is install the one of your choice.

  6. Peter C.

    When will they get real

    Until Microsucks is fined 300 BILLION Euro they will continue to violate law for PROFIT. There is no incentive to comply with law when they profit from violation of law. Fine them real money and throw the CEO in prison for 5 years and they will get the message loud and clear - as will other unscupulous companies who exhibit chronic violations of law for profit.

    1. dogged
      Facepalm

      Re: When will they get real

      Microsucks

      300 BILLION Euro

      I see they're teaching IT in primary schools now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @dogged - Re: When will they get real

        You're a bit late, mate! All computing classes taught in schools and universities are about Microsoft products. And it has been like that for a while now.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @dogged - When will they get real

          It is scary when all they teach is Microsoft...

  7. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    This is what MS have said in response.

    "We take this matter very seriously and moved quickly to address this problem as soon as we became aware of it. Although this was the result of a technical error, we take responsibility for what happened, and we are strengthening our internal procedures to help ensure something like this cannot happen again. We sincerely apologize for this mistake and will continue to cooperate fully with the Commission."

    1. Lewis Mettler
      Stop

      who wrote it and when

      That is their statement? And you believe them?

      Have naive do you think people are?

      I will bet any amount of money that Steve Ballmer knew they were in violation and fully approved the illegal act.

      He only lies about it now publicly.

      Ballmer can not be so stupid.

      1. hplasm
        Happy

        "Ballmer can not be so stupid."

        *Citation Needed*

  8. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
    Facepalm

    Seriously?

    "This meant that millions of people missed the chance to ditch IE for a better different browser."

    No, this meant that millions of people had to actually use their brains and decide they wanted a different browser rather than have their hands held. The sheer volume of protests by affected punters and the spike in IE usage rates in the EU should have told them something was wrong. What, you mean that didn't happen?

    1. Vic

      Re: Seriously?

      > millions of people had to actually use their brains

      The whole point is that millions of people *don't know that there are alternatives* to IE. That's why the browser choice screen is necessary

      Vic.

      1. hitmouse

        Re: Seriously?

        More pointedly millions of people don't know what a browser is. They don't know the difference between software and hardware, let alone subtleties about what comprises an operating system, an application, a browser.

        Anyone reading or commenting in here is so far along the asymptote to the right of the bell curve, they may not even aware there is such a curve back there.

  9. Mephistro
    Pint

    The EU is not perfect, but...

    "Microsoft may be fined up to 10 per cent of its total annual turnover"

    That's more than enough to make them pay more attention next time. And also to make several heads roll, even bald and chair-throwing heads. ;-)

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: The EU is not perfect, but...

      Indeed this is how to regulate effectively. There have been some eye-wateringly high fines over the last 12 months but only when you put them in the context of % of revenue can you see whether they are likely to act as deterrents. The Economist made a comparison a few months ago.

      1. Mephistro
        Thumb Up

        Re: The EU is not perfect, but... (@ Charlie Clark)

        Nice, nice link!

  10. Spoonsinger
    Paris Hilton

    Windows 8 TIFKAM IE,

    How's that going to work out like?

    (EU probing obviously - Paris no doubt involved).

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    What's all the fuss about?

    "So f***ing what?", is my response!

    Maybe next time I buy a Nissan from my local Nissan dealer the EU should force them to suggest that I can also purchase models x, y and z from Honda, BMW and Skoda, you know, just in the interests of fair play.

    I can't say I am overfond of Microsoft, but really, this whole EU/IE spat is so zzZZZZzzz.

    Anyway, judging by my last Xbox update, they only put IE on there... Maybe, if the EU bureaucrats find their expenses coffers a little on the low side, they fine them for that too. I mean, it's so, so evil after all, eh? Meh.

    1. Manolo
      Holmes

      Re: What's all the fuss about?

      I take it you slept the day they taught economy in high school?

      The point is Microsoft was levering their near monopoly in the operating systems market to create an unfair advantage in the browser market.

      So to change your analogy to something more correct: what if you could only buy a Nissan and Nissan would start making their cars more expensive by putting in a TomTom, while not having the option of buying a cheaper car without one, or with a different brand of navigation? And don't say IE is "free", because it isn't. It costs MS money to develop and maintain it and you can be sure that cost is factored in the price of Windows.

      I'm neither a fan of Microsoft or the EU, but this is one of the few things the EU handled well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What's all the fuss about?

        1) I am not American hence I have never been to 'high school'.

        2) I am aware of the monopoly ruling.

        3) Personally I have never met anyone who was unaware of how to enter someotherbrowser.tld/download/.

        4) As for cost, of course it's factored into the price of Windows. Windows is overpriced, by quite some margin in my mind.

        5) As for studying economics, your're right, I didn't. But then look at the mess we are in with the 1st world economy. If that's the result of the economics education in 'high school' then I'm glad I missed it.

        :)

        1. toadwarrior
          FAIL

          Re: What's all the fuss about?

          The term high school is used outside of the US and canada.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What's all the fuss about?

            biut in the UK generally means age 11-16 (or up to 18) rather than say the US where 14-18 (up to 20) might be meant.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Meh

            Re: What's all the fuss about?

            "The term high school is used outside of the US and canada"

            Oh my. Whatever shall I do to atone for my sin? OK, I am not from Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Eire, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, China, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United States.

            Happy now? Some people, so picky!

        2. Mephistro
          Joke

          Re: What's all the fuss about?

          "3) Personally I have never met anyone who was unaware of how to enter someotherbrowser.tld/download."

          You should get out more and know more people.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What's all the fuss about? @Mephisto

            "You should get out more and know more people."

            If more people did this whole browser thing would probably fizzle out as peoples' sense of proportion kicked in. Anyone who wanted to read about it would have to come to The Reg to hear how not having loads of browser option stuck in your face mysteriously stops you installing any of them.

        3. Vic

          Re: What's all the fuss about?

          > 2) I am aware of the monopoly ruling.

          Your posts would indicate otherwise...

          Vic.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Go

            Re: What's all the fuss about?

            "Your posts would indicate otherwise..."

            Maybe I just think there are more important things for the EU to whine about and maybe, just maybe, my posts were constructed quite deliberately, for that very reason. Then again, maybe not. Either way I find the whole EU/IE spat a right old yawn.

            I may be able to summon a little enthusiasm for anything EU orientated if they ever go after Apple and others with similar gusto.

            Either way, I shall continue to view the EU bureaucrats as a bunch of whinging, whining, 'fogie-fied' ol' tossers. (Just like me perhaps!)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Microsoft was levering their near monopoly ... to create an unfair advantage in the browser market.

        Like they're going to profit billions from that...

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Microsoft was levering their monopoly ... to create an unfair advantage in the browser market.

          "Like they're going to profit billions from that..."

          They almost certainly *did*. though whether they still do is another matter. IE6 became a de facto standard in the business world, making it that much harder for rival OSes to offer a viable desktop. In fact, even once Microsoft themselves wanted to kill IE6, they found that they couldn't do it and there are plenty of companies who are still using IE6 or IE7 on XP. In short, Microsoft's practices were so anti-competitive that even Microsoft's future self has suffered. (Serves 'em right, I hear you say. I shall not argue.)

      3. Hilibnist
        Pirate

        Re: What's all the fuss about?

        IE probably does need paying for at some level, but since its removal hasn't resulted in a price drop for Windows, why do you assume it is making Windows more expensive? Microsoft's pricing does that by itself, not the inclusion of optional software.

        Other options are available.

    2. PaulR79
      Thumb Down

      Re: What's all the fuss about?

      You can't compare car dealerships to the situation Microsoft was in when they were investigated. At the time they had IE so far embedded in the OS that you couldn't uninstall it even if you wanted to. Ignoring the choice of removing it you have to see how big a security risk that can be. This may all sound dull and boring to you now but that's ok, you have your choice now of multiple browsers that all operate on a similar level and that's in part down to the decisions of the EU trial and the US trial.

      It might not matter as much now as it did at the time but showing that they will be held accountable for failing to adhere to the terms of the agreement will teach both Microsoft and any other company thinking of doing the same that they will be punished for abusing their position.

      Also, you're bad at analogies.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What's all the fuss about?

        "Also, you're bad at analogies."

        It was quite deliberate thank you :)

    3. MortisDei
      Trollface

      Re: What's all the fuss about?

      that would give them further ammunition to do the same to sony for only offering their browser, and not letting me install firefox on a PS3 (i don't actually own one but my point stands)

  12. ContentsMayVary

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg

    That is all.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Statistics, damn lies and statistics

      For comparison the stats from Akamai (almost certainly a much larger base though notably US-biased)

  13. MortisDei

    I don't get this

    so what about Apple? or ChromeOS (or whatever the hell it's called)? are they required to give their users a choice of browser? why is MS being singled out for this, when I doubt it's competitors are any better.

    and why should it matter anyway? non-technical users won't understand and will probably stick to IE anyway, where as your experienced/power user is going to go for chrome or firefox out of habit anyway, and the fact that no one makes money out of the web browser itself. i just don't get this whole thing, it just shouldn't be an issue

    1. Lewis Mettler
      Stop

      really? you think that?

      Illegal acts from Microsoft are targeted at the non-technical users. And that is why it is illegal in the first place.

      And for the really stupid people out there, no one is making money off their browser distribution for the simple and complete reason that Microsoft forces all consumers to purchase IE. Even under the ballot screen.

      Microsoft in fact does make money off of IE. Probably about $35 a copy. That is the price they charged before their illegal conduct began. And there is no reason to think otherwise. Oh, except for those who lie and claim because the price is not disclosed it must be free. Idiots. Maybe you pay $200 for IE and the OS is free. One is just as likely as the other. And in fact, with illegal acts either could be true. Consumers are not given the choice. If you want the OS you have to buy IE too. If you want IE you have to also purchase the OS.

      It is an issue because it is illegal and everyone at Microsoft knows that for a fact (or is a bonafide idiot). Certainly not very intelligent. Any Microsoft lawyer can explain it to you if you still do not understand.

    2. Manolo
      Paris Hilton

      Re: I don't get this

      Apple does not have a near monopoly in the operating system market for home computing (nor for mobile). That is why MS was singled out.

      I am getting tired of all these people who fail to understand what a monopoly is and that OS and applications are (or should be) separate markets.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I don't get this

        Okay. But you would agree I assume that they have a near monopoly in the tablet market...?

        Did I get a browser choice when I first setup my iPad, no...?

        How about the link between the Apple ecosystem and iTunes, no monopoly there either I assume?

    3. toadwarrior

      Re: I don't get this

      Because iOS does not have a monopoly and like 3 people own a chromeos device. Microsoft abused their OS monopoly to gain control of the browser market. Whether or not apple pushes safari on people it was that way from day one and they did not use a monopoly to get where it's at

      1. naive

        Re: I don't get this

        It really sad if people "don't get this". It is all about companies abusing their power in the market in order to eliminate competition so that prices can be raised later. MS got previously EU fines for non-disclosure of essential API's which were several 100-million Euros, Intel got fined for paying resellers NOT to sell PC with AMD cpu's. People who "don't get this" would have gotten it at the latest when licences for windows were $300 instead of $50-$100, and a basic Intel CPU would start from $300 and up, but then it is too late.

        Good at least somebody raises an "evil company tax" in this world, my guess it that MS will finally "get it" when they get a $500 million fine on the doormat..

        EU taxpayers deserve a refund, thx to US rulings the whole world pays a MS patent racketeering tax on everything with DOS formatted filesystems and on Android phones..

    4. Lars Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: I don't get this

      Perhaps you are not old enough. Those court cases take many years to finish. But to make it simple MS had a monopoly (or near) on the desktop at the time, still the number one as we know. A monopoly has to follow rules that apply to a monopoly (USA or the EU alike). Using a monopoly to create an other monopoly is not allowed.

      Take Scandinavian Airlines, they had a monopoly in Scandinavia and they would never have been able (not that they tried) to bye airfields in Scandinavia for the same reason. There are of course better examples too.

      Anyway Apple or Google do not have this problem, but in case you read anything you know that Google could have similar problems as a near monopoly in search. As for the EU and Microsoft read "Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft", as I remember it is from the year 2004.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Lars - Re: I don't get this

        Actually that's what Microsoft would like you to think about Google. Google has a dominant market position in search but they are not hampering competition in any way. If I remember well every Windows machine is being shipped with IE having Bing as the only search engine configured and Firefox ships by default with Google as a search engine but it is just an option and it takes two clicks to search with Bing or other search engine instead. More than that, nothing in this world prevents you or anyone else to start indexing the Internet and provide search services. Have you ever seen a web site that will allow itself to be specifically exclusively and indexed by Google ? Google is not forcing anyone to use any of their services, if you have information to the contrary I'm interested to know. Please don't take my word, just give it a try to Bing + Hotmail + other non-Googles and see for yourself how it works.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Microsoft can't even spell 'honour'

    Microsoft can't even spell 'honour' - they spell it 'honor'!

    (I kid my fellows from across the pond - or is that 'pounde'?)

  15. Wookie

    what browser market?

    This has always confused me a little.

    All browsers are given away for free for crying out loud. If the Browser was so integral to the process then why are google basically printing money with a similar - and far more insidious monopoly in something that matters - ie. web search and consumer information.

    I've never understood the rationale behind the banning of the inclusion of IE and Media Player varieties in Windows, when alternatives were always freely available elsewhere. Im honestly surprised that microsoft were allowed to include their antispyware stuff at all. For me these were just natural developments and extensions of the OS.

    1. Vic

      Re: what browser market?

      > All browsers are given away for free for crying out loud

      Whilst that's not actually true, the zero price of most browsers is a *result* of Microsoft's tying IE to Windows; it destroyed the competiitive market that once existed.

      Vic.

    2. Justicesays
      Facepalm

      Re: what browser market?

      The main reason browsers are free is because Microsoft forced the first commercial browser (Netscape Navigator, maybe you heard of it?) out of business by bundling a browser in their OS for free.

      Which is why there was a monopoly ruling to break Microsoft up in the late 90s, into an OS vendor, and a separate software vendor.

      Then I guess various palms were greased, as eventually the department of justice bottled and said they would just let Microsoft get away with telling the PC manufacturers that they could bundle non-Microsoft software with their hardware offerings without getting cut off. Because that seems fair.

      So you logic of "why would I care about Microsoft bundled IE because all browsers are free" is completely backwards.

      Browsers are free because Microsoft bundle one, so they all have to compete with that. And the Anti-trust authorities let them keep doing it even after it was deemed to be abuse of monopoly.

  16. Hooksie
    WTF?

    Get off the high horse

    Microsoft include a browser in their os through which you can download any other browser in the world and set it as your default. So what the fuck is the problem? That's like saying you went to buy a Mercedes then complain because they won't fit a BMW wheel. Apple get away with it and don't give me any of your pish about not being a monopoly because in the tablet market they are. Windows 8 RT will even let you use another browser and what money is there to be made anyway? The EU wanks can just fuck off.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Get off the high horse

      It's more like Mercedes preventing you from buying and installing a BMW wheel. Apple gets away with it and they are not a monopoly because they do not force OEMs to install iOS, they come up with their hardware + software so you take it like that or leave it. By the way, Microsoft will now be in the same position as Apple with the tablets they manufacture themselves. Get it now ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Get off the high horse @AC 19:02

        "It's more like Mercedes preventing you from buying and installing a BMW wheel."

        Nope. You can install any browser you want on Windows. The fact that Windows comes with IE installed has zero impact on other browsers. If people don't install them they're either unaware of them (try advertising guys - I've seen quite a few for Chrome on TV,) or are happy with IE. I know loads of people here will just say the latter group is stupid, but relying on that argument is frankly childish and unlikely to sway people.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    For those saying this is a non-issue and simply to use another browser, uhm, you do realize that you still need to patch IE bugs even if you aren't using it, by virtue of it being on your system and integrated with the OS, right? MS likes to brag about how many people download and install the new versions of the programs that come with Windows, but I have to wonder how many of them are doing so purely for security reasons like myself and not out of an actual desire to use the damned things..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So what? If it's that big a deal use another OS. Need Windows to run an app/use Netflix or whatever? Take it up with the app/web service vendor. They're the ones really giving MS a user base.

  18. Donald Becker
    FAIL

    Some of the posters are missing the point.

    Microsoft agreed to present a browser choice as part of the remedy (or had it imposed on them, but that's unimportant). The alternative would have been higher fines or blocking their right to do business in the EU.

    They then did not follow through with the remedy while (this is an important point) annually certifying to the court that they were complying.

    This wasn't a trivial side issue, where checking would cost more than the fine. This was a Billion Dollars/Euros. Big 'B'. An army of lawyers were involved. Complying with the agreement would require a medium sized team inside Microsoft to implement. Not as a small part of their job, but as their primary focus.

  19. coatesy

    I dont get it?

    I get Microsoft trying to create a browser monopoly by bundle ie with windows but what about the other programs bundled with windows like paint,notepad and calculator there must be other software companies out there making these sorts of apps.

    why can I only use Samsung's web browser in my TV. do Samsung have a monopoly in TVs.

    I live in a town in the UK which has its own Telephone lines (some might say a monopoly) so the only option for broadband is through them, so I cannot get the sky broadband bundle, on the plus side the service they other is good, technical support great, never had them bat bat an eyelid about illegal downloads (for the 8 Years I've being on broadband) and they rolling out FTTH.

    The thing with Microsoft is you've always had a choice of browser some people just didn't know which id put down to lack of advertising on the others behalf. A lot of average users don't even know what a browser is or what it does.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I dont get it?

      It's ok, you can admit to living in Hull, we won't judge you :-)

  20. Oengus
    FAIL

    Another thing that has been missed...

    Not only did Microsoft fail to comply with the agreement they actually filed submissions to the courts specifying that they were complying with the agreement during the period when they were non-compliant.

    M$ should be slammed for making a false declaration to the courts. Who in their right mind would make a legal filing about something that can be easily checked without actually checking. There should also be punitive fines against the M$ official who made the declaration of compliance.

  21. Zmodem

    you just uninstall the IE in control panel => programs -> turn windows features on or off

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This does not uninstall IE

      otherwise you will never be able to visit Windows update.

      1. Zmodem

        Re: This does not uninstall IE

        it uninstalls it as much as you need, you need a browser to be able to download the browser you want to use if you dont backup all your downloads while using another version of windows, you install your browser and then disable IE

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like