Microsoft, Internet Explorer, and the EU court decision

[jsiv]

The problem is that it goes back to the mid-90s, when a web browser was in fact not an integral part of the operating system, but rather a separate market with several commercial players. Microsoft came along and made one, and then went and integrated it into the operating system* (a different market) and thus used their dominant position in one market (they basically had 100% of the OS market) to get an unfair advantage in another. That is what is considered illegal, not merely the act of bundling a piece of software.

Things have of course changed a lot since then, which means it's really too late to just rip the browser out. It's now an integrated part of any modern OS, and so doing that isn't a good solution. That's why there has been all this talk of forcing Microsoft to offer users a choice of third-party browsers instead, in an attempt to make up for the damage done.

Have you ever wondered why the only products that seem to compete well with Microsoft products are ones that are free and open source? This is not a coincidence, it's because it's next to impossible to compete commercially.


*Actually two operating systems, as they got IE bundled with Mac OS as well in return for helping Apple out.

 

[ddt]

If they aren't complying with earlier measures than the EU can get them for that. Trying to force them to distribute competitors' products is just plain ridiculous.

Seeing that they have, in fact, profited from distributing IE for years against competition laws, it seems to me a fair measure to rectify the market place. The fines they've had to pay the EU don't help the other browser manufacturers to a competitive place in the market. Exposure does. Compare it with a thief: he'll have to do time for breaking the law (cf. the fines MS had to pay the EU), but also to give back the stolen goods to the rightful owner(s). Compare the latter to MS having to distribute competitors' goods.

I've seen Europeans complain about how expensive Windows is in Europe compared to the US. 500 million euro fines for including a media player with Windows probably has plenty to do with it.

Well, I haven't heard those complaints, but then I hardly have friends with MS . And I notice that all computer stuff, both hardware and software, is cheaper in the US - at best, it's 1 euro for 1 dollar, which is a bad deal with the exchange rates for a couple of years. Did MS raise the price of Windows in the EU after the WMP ruling?

 

[dtugg]

Seeing that they have, in fact, profited from distributing IE for years against competition laws, it seems to me a fair measure to rectify the market place. The fines they've had to pay the EU don't help the other browser manufacturers to a competitive place in the market. Exposure does. Compare it with a thief: he'll have to do time for breaking the law (cf. the fines MS had to pay the EU), but also to give back the stolen goods to the rightful owner(s). Compare the latter to MS having to distribute competitors' goods.

I thought you were talking about something else. I just think it is completely ridiculous that including a web browser with Windows is considered anti-competitive. If they tried to prevent users from installing a different browsers, that would be different. If including a web browser is anti competitive, including any kind of software is anti-competitive and if Microsoft shipped Windows without any software bundled, it would be completely useless out of the box. Does the EU want that? Is that good for consumers?

Here is a list of software/utilities that are included with Windows 7 in the US and for which there are competitors:

IE
Paint
Notepad
WordPad
Media Player
Media Center
DVD Maker
Desktop Gadgets
Fax and Scan
Sound Recorder
Snipping Tool
Windows Firewall
Disk Management (to create disk partitions and such)
Disk Cleanup
Disk Defrag
Backup and Restore
Calculator
Remote Desktop Connection
Speech Recognition

And I'm sure there is more.

Do you think that it is anti-competitive that Windows ships with all of this? Should they be forced to strip everything and sell it bare-bones, or alternatively distribute products of competitors along with theirs?

Well, I haven't heard those complaints, but then I hardly have friends with MS . And I notice that all computer stuff, both hardware and software, is cheaper in the US - at best, it's 1 euro for 1 dollar, which is a bad deal with the exchange rates for a couple of years. Did MS raise the price of Windows in the EU after the WMP ruling?

I have no idea if the price of Window went up after that. I was more saying that the reason it is more expensive may be that the EU makes it more expensive to do business in Europe in general. And this wouldn't just be a Microsoft thing.

 

[ddt]

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.

Opening an AVI file is done with

fopen("mymovie.avi", "rb")

or an equivalent library call/system call. WMP interprets the file. There is no reason why Windows should provide such a program. After all, it doesn't provide a program to open DOC-files, XLS-files, PDF-files or a host of other common file types. Anything beyond a simple text editor (which you'll need to edit your INI-files) is not part of the OS.

IE is more of the same. It is a program designed to allow the user to open files of type .htm and various other web based file types. To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.

And the same here.

For both media file types and HTML-files, I see no technical reason at all why the OS should have any kind of integrated support. For speeding up file access, maybe an mmap-like system call, but that works on any file type.

The problem is that it goes back to the mid-90s, when a web browser was in fact not an integral part of the operating system, but rather a separate market with several commercial players. Microsoft came along and made one, and then went and integrated it into the operating system* (a different market) and thus used their dominant position in one market (they basically had 100% of the OS market) to get an unfair advantage in another. That is what is considered illegal, not merely the act of bundling a piece of software.

Things have of course changed a lot since then, which means it's really too late to just rip the browser out. It's now an integrated part of any modern OS, and so doing that isn't a good solution. That's why there has been all this talk of forcing Microsoft to offer users a choice of third-party browsers instead, in an attempt to make up for the damage done.

I remember well that MS claimed before the US judge that IE was (then) an inseparable part of the OS; and that the prosecution showed that they had, in fact, ripped IE out of Windows, much to MS' dismay as they had now shown to be lying to the court. AFAIK, since then they have (on purpose? I guess) integrated IE into the Windows kernel, so that IE in fact is only a skin on top of relevant library calls.

I don't see a valid reason why a browser has to be tied into the kernel. There is no single technical reason to do so. The fact that Firefox, Opera, etc. also work in Windows and at comparable speed is proof of that. So, if you say that a browser is an "integrated part of any modern OS", we have to discuss: what constitutes an OS?

It will be no surprise I prefer the technical view of what is an OS. Then, an OS is a kernel with a fairly minimal set of tools to administer it: DIR, COPY, EDIT, etc., and/or their graphical equivalents. A browser, a mailer, a word processor, etc., have no place in that view of an OS.

If, on the other hand you take the view that an OS offers also those tools that the vast majority of your customers need and use, then you'd indeed have to include a browser, a mailer, a media player, a word processor and a spreadsheet program and maybe some other programs into your definition. Given that MS itself does not include the two latter with Windows - they're separately sold as part of Office - we have to reject this view for this case.

Have you ever wondered why the only products that seem to compete well with Microsoft products are ones that are free and open source? This is not a coincidence, it's because it's next to impossible to compete commercially

Just ask Spyglass - they'd get a percentage of the profits on IE . It's very hard to compete with a product that's free and installed standard on your customers' computers. And at times (IE 5), IE has been the best game in town. I do note that Opera has held out, even in times that they charged for their browser.

 

[dtugg]

If, on the other hand you take the view that an OS offers also those tools that the vast majority of your customers need and use, then you'd indeed have to include a browser, a mailer, a media player, a word processor and a spreadsheet program and maybe some other programs into your definition. Given that MS itself does not include the two latter with Windows - they're separately sold as part of Office - we have to reject this view for this case.

But Windows does come with a word processor. It's not as powerful as Word, of course, but it works just fine. One could use it to write it a school report for example, and most other things people need a word processor for.

And I very seriously doubt that most people have a need for a spreadsheet program.

 

[Wudang]

Step way back in time - Microsoft would not even exist if a similar ruling had not been made against IBM many years ago, that IBM unfairly dominated the IBM market.
Google IBM consent decree
then STFU.

 

[ddt]

But Microsoft does come with a word processor. It's not as powerful as Word, of course, but it works just fine. One could use it to write it a school report for example, and most other things people need a word processor for.

From that wiki page:

WordPad can format and print text, but lacks intermediate features such as a spell checker, thesaurus, and support for tables.

Have you seen some of the people spell here? Tables seem to me to be a very useful feature too, even for a school report.

And I very seriously doubt that most people have a need for a spreadsheet program.

For the home user, you may very well have a point there. But the business user? They don't get Excel packaged with the Professional Edition of Windows either.

 

[Mitchell314]

A) This is quibbling, but I noticed reference to "What is the OS then?" AFAIK, just plain Windows is technically not an OS, although the Windows Kernel is. Somebody would have to look it up to verify/debunk it, as this is off the top of my head.

B) Should Apple be sued for bundling Safari automatically? Hey, Mac OS X is all about integration, and Apple's own applications extremely so. I don't see the problem so long as you can easily get, install, and use another browser in Windows. Hey, if the Ubuntu devs made their own browser and automatically added it, would anybody complain? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I find this pointless and tedious.

 

[Ducky]

A) This is quibbling,<snip>

Welcome to the computer section.

<snip> but I find this pointless and tedious.

OS wars usually are.

 

[laca]

Here is a list of software/utilities that are included with Windows 7 in the US and for which there are competitors:

IE
Paint
Notepad
WordPad
Media Player
Media Center
DVD Maker
Desktop Gadgets
Fax and Scan
Sound Recorder
Snipping Tool
Windows Firewall
Disk Management (to create disk partitions and such)
Disk Cleanup
Disk Defrag
Backup and Restore
Calculator
Remote Desktop Connection
Speech Recognition

And I'm sure there is more.

Do you think that it is anti-competitive that Windows ships with all of this? Should they be forced to strip everything and sell it bare-bones, or alternatively distribute products of competitors along with theirs?

Wow, so many strawmen. Only IE is relevant in this case. The question is: did Microsoft break antitrust laws with IE? The EC thinks it did. Hence the ruling. Simple as that. You don't have to like it.

I do not think for moment there is someone who seriously considers that Microsoft broke antitrust laws with most of those other apps you mentioned. Except with Media Player. They got slapped for that too. If they break antitrust laws with other bundling too, I'm sure they will get slapped on the wrist for those too. In due time.

 

[laca]

A) This is quibbling, but I noticed reference to "What is the OS then?" AFAIK, just plain Windows is technically not an OS, although the Windows Kernel is. Somebody would have to look it up to verify/debunk it, as this is off the top of my head.

B) Should Apple be sued for bundling Safari automatically? Hey, Mac OS X is all about integration, and Apple's own applications extremely so. I don't see the problem so long as you can easily get, install, and use another browser in Windows. Hey, if the Ubuntu devs made their own browser and automatically added it, would anybody complain? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I find this pointless and tedious.

The bundling is not the problem per se. The problem is that sometimes with bundling there are antitrust issues. It seems that the European Comission thinks that this was the case with IE. Apple does not have market dominance, so it cannot leverage it and that is exactly why it couldn't be sued.

 

[realpaladin]

Additional info on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abzAzMCoi3Rw

 

[dtugg]

Wow, so many strawmen. Only IE is relevant in this case. The question is: did Microsoft break antitrust laws with IE?

It wasn't a strawman, it was a a question. If bundling IE is illegal is bundling other apps illegal too? Should Microsoft ship Windows so it is useless out of the box.

The EC thinks it did. Hence the ruling. Simple as that. You don't have to like it.

Yeah, and it looks like Microsoft solved any bogus claims that the EU had. There is no way that they can reasonably justify saying that Microsoft is being anti-competitive with regards to IE if it isn't even included with Windows anymore. I'm sure they will try something though.

I do not think for moment there is someone who seriously considers that Microsoft broke antitrust laws with most of those other apps you mentioned.

Why not? What's the difference?

Except with Media Player. They got slapped for that too.

They made an insane ruling with that one too. And I hear the Windows versions sans Media Player are doing really well in Europe.

If they break antitrust laws with other bundling too, I'm sure they will get slapped on the wrist for those too. In due time.

I have no doubt that the EU will try to go after them for more money in the future. In the end, it will be consumers in the EU that end up paying rather than Microsoft. Do you think they just eat billions of dollars in fines?

 

[cyborg]

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

The interpretation of files is an application level concern - not an OS level concern.

Ditto for connecting to the Internet (or any other remote machine by any other mechanism - because there are others) and interpreting whatever data comes off it. (Whereas dealing with actually communicating with network devices on a low level is part of what an OS should do).

To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.

Since that is not what it says that's not what it is.

The basic technical argument is that it really isn't necessary that the HTML rendering engine of IE should provide functionality related to other core application level tasks when it really doesn't need to. Tying certain APIs together in a spaghetti of code is one of the anti-competitive practises Microsoft use in order to make it difficult to, say, drop the Gecko rendering engine in place of the Mosaic rendering engine (as is done in WINE to provide some sort of IE emulation).

That is the basic nature of the complaint.

ETA: And anybody arguing by analogy to other "bundling" practices of competitors fundamentally misses the point: MONOPOLIES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. It is purposefully unfair because of the recognition that monopolies can be harmful to things such as innovation and improvement that we want to come out of captialism via the mechanism of competition. If Microsoft could not use their market position such that the vendor-lock-in tricks surrounding IE were not effective then no-one would care. They can, so people do care.

 

[Ducky]

Computer scientist here - NO that is NOT the prime function of an OS.

The prime function of an OS is to provide the appropriate abstractions to allow underlying and diverse hardware to be controlled in a consistent way, to provide task scheduling, memory management et al.

The interpretation of files is an application level concern - not an OS level concern.

Ditto for connecting to the Internet (or any other remote machine by any other mechanism - because there are others) and interpreting whatever data comes off it. (Whereas dealing with actually communicating with network devices on a low level is part of what an OS should do).



Since that is not what it says that's not what it is.

The basic technical argument is that it really isn't necessary that the HTML rendering engine of IE should provide functionality related to other core application level tasks when it really doesn't need to. Tying certain APIs together in a spaghetti of code is one of the anti-competitive practises Microsoft use in order to make it difficult to, say, drop the Gecko rendering engine in place of the Mosaic rendering engine (as is done in WINE to provide some sort of IE emulation).

That is the basic nature of the complaint.

ETA: And anybody arguing by analogy to other "bundling" practices of competitors fundamentally misses the point: MONOPOLIES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. It is purposefully unfair because of the recognition that monopolies can be harmful to things such as innovation and improvement that we want to come out of captialism via the mechanism of competition. If Microsoft could not use their market position such that the vendor-lock-in tricks surrounding IE were not effective then no-one would care. They can, so people do care.

QFT.

Particularly the part about what an OS is. End users often mistake an application as part of the OS itself.

 

[Mitchell314]

Windows is a bundle of stuff. So there is nothing wrong with it to recognize file extensions and to supply the appropriate program on start up. Hey, it takes all of two seconds with command prompt to change associations. Ftype and assoc, and there yeh go. Now if it's the kernel that's doing recognization and other fiddlings for the desktop, then I'll admit that isn't it's job. But I find that to be more of a software principle issue rather than an anti-competitive issue. I mean, why not go after MS for allowing programs using DirectX to have an extra priority level reserved for them? That's anti-competitive against programs using OpenGL, i.e just about anything made for being cross-platform. Why not (besides a little difference in purpose)? Because it's not a big deal, and it's MS saying "look, we know DirectX, and we know programs using DirectX are going to be processor hungry, so we'll allow a little bump on the CPU scheduling."

I'm sure Microsoft wasn't thinking "First, we'll conquer the market on browsers, then, the World!" Okay, maybe their marketing team was. But it's just common sense. If I were in their shoes, I'd think "I've got an OS+desktop+bundle. I've got a browser. Browsers are good for searching the web. I know! I'll incorporate IE into Windows."

Let's be honest. Most people would pick Internet Explorer if they were given the choice when booting up their new machine. Those of us minorities (but growing!) who know about Firefox's (or Safari's, or Opera's, or even Lynx's ) superiority would have gone off and gotten the respective browser anyways. It's not moving market shares. It's just creating an inconvenience for everybody.

 

[cyborg]

Windows is a bundle of stuff.

Yes it is. Part of which is an OS. Part of which includes a browser. Not having these things intertwinned in an anti-competitive way benig the point of contention in the EU ruling.

I mean, why not go after MS for allowing programs using DirectX to have an extra priority level reserved for them?

It might be simply because no one has thought to do so. The browser issue is long outstanding and has particular interested parties.

I'm sure Microsoft wasn't thinking "First, we'll conquer the market on browsers, then, the World!" Okay, maybe their marketing team was. But it's just common sense. If I were in their shoes, I'd think "I've got an OS+desktop+bundle. I've got a browser. Browsers are good for searching the web. I know! I'll incorporate IE into Windows."

Again: that is not the point of contention. It is not simply a browser. It does not behave like a normal piece of shrinkwrap software - it has tenticles all over the place. You cannot simply extract the beast and expect Windows to be happy with it.

 

[funk de fino]

Microsoft were stupid and arrogant and got slapped. Get over it.

ETA - If it had been an EU company being dealt with by the US in the same way there would be a whole lot of backslappin going on round here IMO.

 

[Almo]

If there's any question of MS acting improperly, read this. I've read most of it, and much of it makes me really mad. They really did act improperly.

One excerpt:

236. In February 1997 a Microsoft account representative told his counterpart at Gateway that Gateway's use of Navigator on its own corporate network was a serious issue at Microsoft. He added that Microsoft would not do any co-marketing and sales campaigns with Gateway if the firm appeared to be anything but pro-Microsoft. If Gateway would replace Navigator with Internet Explorer, Microsoft would compensate Gateway for its investment in Netscape's product. If Gateway refused, Microsoft might be compelled to audit Gateway's internal use of Microsoft products. Gateway was separately told by Microsoft representatives that its decision to ship Navigator with its PCs could affect its business relationship with Microsoft. Despite the pressure from Microsoft, Gateway refused to switch its internal use to Internet Explorer or to stop shipping Navigator with its PCs. Although Microsoft did not implement its more specific threats, Gateway has consistently paid higher prices for Windows than its competitors. Microsoft's actions not only corroborate the evidence of its interest in suppressing the usage of Navigator, they also demonstrate its ability to threaten recalcitrant customers without losing their business.

 

[dtugg]

Microsoft were stupid and arrogant and got slapped. Get over it.

If you ask me, the EU was stupid and arrogant and it backfired on them. Microsoft basically spit in their face and said, "fine we'll ship it without a browser." And there is no reasonable way that they could say Microsoft is being anti-competitive with regards to IE if it won't even come with Windows anymore.

ETA - If it had been an EU company being dealt with by the US in the same way there would be a whole lot of backslappin going on round here IMO.

No, if the DoJ tried to make an EU company distribute competitors' products, and it backfired on them, I would say the same thing.