EU antitrust regulators investigate Microsoft over browsers

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Pinga, Jul 17, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/oukin-uk-eu-microsoft-idUKBRE86G0CV20120717
     
  2. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Looks like the EU needs more money.
     
  3. Narxis

    Narxis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Posts:
    477
    I hope they will get more money. Go EU! That's the spirit. :)
     
  4. SirDrexl

    SirDrexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Posts:
    545
    Location:
    USA
    Sure. Go after MS for bundling their own browser, as if nobody else does that.
     
  5. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    They should go after Google for offering Chrome with every third party software around.
     
  6. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    SirDrexl, The Hammer,

    Does Google prevent the presence of other browsers, as that's that Microsoft were forcing OEMs to do.

    The punishment may be daft (I question the effectiveness of the browser ballot) but they have failed to comply with keeping it on until some point in 2014.
     
  7. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Err, no, I suggest you re-read the original case. They were punished for bundling the browser the with OS, similar to how they were being punished for bundling WMP with XP. This has nothing to do with OEM's. I've seen laptops bundled with so much rubbish (including browsers) with peoples laptops I've lost count, I've yet to come across a "pure" laptop. I'm usually the one wiping them to vanilla for folks.

    As a follow up, the EU want to investigate Microsoft again, this time over Windows RT's browser choice, an OS that has 0% market share.

    Obviously, Apple gets free rain with this with bundling Safari with OSX, as does Ubuntu with bundling Firefox. If you want to only count the dominant OS's like Windows, then iOS is an example. Dominant on the mobile market and bundling Safari.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2012
  8. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    What does that mean? Is the antitrust regulator wrong?
     
  9. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    From the "PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT" section:

    From the EU commisions "COMMISSION DECISION of 16.12.2009" document: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39530/39530_2671_3.pdf
     
  10. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    Is there an Apple device that does not include Safari? How is it different?
     
  11. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    No where does it mention that other browsers must not be installed, which was exactly what you were implying, incorrectly.

    I didn't even realize that OEMs had a choice to ship Windows without a browser (dumb), I thought IE was part of the OS! But heavens forbid that MS want to push Windows with IE, as if the user doesn't have a choice.
     
  12. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ace_billions_in_new_fines_over_browser_choice

    That's enough for me. No point in trying to spin things. If any company feels that its access is being limited somewhere or the other, it too could approach the antitrust regulator either directly or through proxies.
     
  13. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Aggrieved parties should approach the regulator.
     
  14. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Please focus on what's being said, no one here debated that or tried to spin anything. The original reason of being forced to use the screen in the first place is being debated, not the success or failure of implementing the screen itself.
     
  15. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Like this: Looks like the EU needs more money.
     
  16. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Sorry, I just realised I was thinking of some of the previous OEM agreements that were subject of the antitrust case in the USA which prevent OEMs installing any other browser.
     
  17. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    At that point in time nothing was being discussed yet ;) Also, my comment wasn't a response to posts that don't exist, like your "spinning" comment was.
     
  18. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I don't really get it. Why do they think it should be illegal to package IE with Windows? These cases are so stupid. A company can't bundle one product with their other product... ridiculous.
     
  19. Tsast42

    Tsast42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Posts:
    137
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It makes the politicians feel relevant. If there is an aspect of Microsoft's implementation of Internet Explorer that I find objectionable it is Microsoft's designing the new versions of IE to only run on their latest OS. It is ludicrous to object to including a browser in any operating system. What next, Notepad? Paint?
     
  20. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    It stems from the era when MS obliterated Netscape and then integrated IE in their OS making it unremovable.
    Having a level playing field has required quite some litigation before Redmond backed down. I really don't get why so many folks are surprised that the EU is strong on anti-monopoly measures. The EU has just taken it all the way, where US regulators halted their efforts earlier.
    The current MS-EU settlement shows that MS offering a 'browser choice screen' is enough for the EU.
    MS forgetting the entire settlement isn't just a small technical glitch imo, seems more like MS raising a wet index finger and checking the current anti-monopoly wind direction/EU stance.
     
  21. SirDrexl

    SirDrexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Posts:
    545
    Location:
    USA
    Maybe because in that case, Apple is also considered the manufacturer, so they can do what they want with their computers. Whereas in MS's case, you have one company providing the OS while another provides the hardware. An OEM may want to include a different browser. I had thought that the issue was that MS would not allow Windows to be licensed unless IE was the default (and only, I suppose) browser, but I'm not sure.
     
  22. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Maybe spend some time over past events? Then, maybe you'll get it? And I'm mean this specific issue and not generalities.

    BTW, who said it is, or should be, "illegal to package IE with Windows?" Where did you get that from? There's a lot of spinning going round by sources who conceal their allegiance or funding, so make sure you verify stuff before believing it (or not). Seriously, I expected a more considered post.

    Anyway, looks like the scope widens:
    http://betanews.com/2012/07/20/eu-trustbusters-tire-of-microsoft-tricks-probe-windows-8/
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  23. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
    Good idea :D

    2004
    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382

    2007
    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/359

    2008
    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/318

    2012
    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/500
     
  24. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
    Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 27 June 2012
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008TJ0167:EN:HTML
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  25. DarkPhoenix

    DarkPhoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Posts:
    87

    They, er.. Missed it? They missed delivering a piece of code that was worked on so they can be in compliance with The Law to 28 million people.. this billion plus dollar company didn't have anyone watching the compiling of the service pack that was supposed to have this??

    Does anyone really believe that? This can be nothing than a bold face Lie.

    Microsoft deserves to lose every dime anyone can take from them. Microsoft needs to go the way of the Timex Sinclair and the Texas Instruments Ti-99 - What.. you never heard of those popular personal computers? Look em up. That's what needs to happen to Microsoft. Less than 20 years from now it needs to be said, " Microsoft.. never heard of them". We had those home computers 20 years ago and they are all forgotten.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.