Microsoft, Internet Explorer, and the EU court decision

[Mitchell314]

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.
...
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.

But then how is it anti-competitive? If MS tried to make it harder to use/install a third party browser, I could see the point of it being anti-competitive.

Here's how I see it:
Microrails is a company that builds passenger train cars (OS) and runs them. They also hand out other things as well for being a customer (The rest of Windows). One of those things is a briefcase (Internet Explorer). So they integrate into their works. Much of the service is done with their own brand of briefcases (IE-Win integration). It's weird, it's backwards, it's not how it's normally done, but it's just how they like to do things. You are allowed to take and use another type of briefcase. It can even be the default. Now, the service for the train won't use it. Is it their fault? Are they not supposed to use their briefcases because they don't integrate yours? Obviously they can't be expected to integrate all briefcases. But it's a service, and it's just how they operate. And how they operate is with some of their own products.

 

[dtugg]

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:

There is no doubt that Microsoft has acted improperly in the past. But that was 12 years ago and Netscape doesn't even exist anymore, so I fail to see how it's relevant unless they are doing the same things today, which AFIK, they aren't.

 

[cyborg]

But then how is it anti-competitive? If MS tried to make it harder to use/install a third party browser, I could see the point of it being anti-competitive.

Well they have infact done such things in the past with hidden APIs.

Is it their fault?

Well yes actually since they specifically designed the briefcase to be weird and then used their train monopoly to force other briefcase designers out of business.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

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

except it has not backfired.

 

[dtugg]

except it has not backfired.

It seems as though their goal was to force Microsoft to distribute competitors' products. That isn't happening at least not unless they want to get even more insane by saying Microsoft is being anti-competitive when IE isn't even included anymore. What will most likely happen is that the OEMs will just install IE anyway. Nothing is accomplished besides the EU looking stupid and possibly fines which will just be passed down to EU consumers.

 

[laca]

Here's how I see it:
Microrails is a company that builds passenger train cars (OS) and runs them. They also hand out other things as well for being a customer (The rest of Windows). One of those things is a briefcase (Internet Explorer). So they integrate into their works. Much of the service is done with their own brand of briefcases (IE-Win integration). It's weird, it's backwards, it's not how it's normally done, but it's just how they like to do things. You are allowed to take and use another type of briefcase. It can even be the default. Now, the service for the train won't use it. Is it their fault? Are they not supposed to use their briefcases because they don't integrate yours? Obviously they can't be expected to integrate all briefcases. But it's a service, and it's just how they operate. And how they operate is with some of their own products.

OK, now what if 9 out of 10 people who use briefcases also use Microrails cars and you are a briefcase manufacturer?

 

[funk de fino]

It seems as though their goal was to force Microsoft to distribute competitors' products. That isn't happening at least not unless they want to get even more insane by saying Microsoft is being anti-competitive when IE isn't even included anymore. What will most likely happen is that the OEMs will just install IE anyway. Nothing is accomplished besides the EU looking stupid and possibly fines which will just be passed down to EU consumers.

The goal was more choice for the consumer and breaking the Microsoft monopoly. This will happen. They had some solutions which Microsoft were not happy with so took their ball home.

The fines in the last however many years were about a $1billion. I think that is a backfiring on Microsoft not the EU. We always pay higher than the US for most things anyway not just software.

OEM's may give a choice of disks with different browsers and you choose one load it and then pay a sub for it.

 

[dtugg]

OK, now what if 9 out of 10 people who use briefcases also use Microrails cars and you are a briefcase manufacturer?

Then make a better briefcase and you'll eventually gain marketshare.

Just like Firefox has done, especially in Europe where it's at something like 35%

 

[dtugg]

The goal was more choice for the consumer and breaking the Microsoft monopoly. This will happen.

How exactly do I have less choice in the US where IE comes with Windows 7? I have five different browsers installed and it was no hassle at all.

As for breaking the Microsoft monopoly, fat chance. Not unless Microsoft decides it's too expensive to do business in Europe and packs up and leaves. That would likely hurt the EU just as much if not more than Microsoft. I would laugh and tell you guys to have fun with your overpriced Apple hardware and million different Linux distros.

They had some solutions which Microsoft were not happy with so took their ball home.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on distributing competitors' software either. I think Microsoft made the correct decision.

The fines in the last however many years were about a $1billion. I think that is a backfiring on Microsoft not the EU. We always pay higher than the US for most things anyway not just software.

Microsoft is in business to make money. Do you think they will just write off a billion dollars?

OEM's may give a choice of disks with different browsers and you choose one load it and then pay a sub for it.

I doubt it, but I guess we'll see. I predict that OEMs will install IE so nothing will have really changed. Except companies like Opera can't go cry to the EU over Microsoft's supposed unfair business practices.

 

[Mitchell314]

How exactly do I have less choice in the US where IE comes with Windows 7? I have five different browsers installed and it was no hassle at all.

Agreed.

As for breaking the Microsoft monopoly, fat chance. Not unless Microsoft decides it's too expensive to do business in Europe and packs up and leaves.

And give up a large market? Microsoft isn't going anywhere.

That would likely hurt the EU just as much if not more than Microsoft. I would laugh and tell you guys to have fun with your overpriced Apple hardware and million different Linux distros.

I don't know. I'd say both are better with costs factored in. Want something advanced? Go with a Mac. Want something simple, free, and does the job well? Go with Linux. Maybe Europe in the end would be better off after all...

 

[dtugg]

And give up a large market? Microsoft isn't going anywhere.

I agree. I just think that the only way Microsoft would lose it's market position is if it voluntarily left.

I don't know. I'd say both are better with costs factored in. Want something advanced? Go with a Mac. Want something simple, free, and does the job well? Go with Linux. Maybe Europe in the end would be better off after all...

I disagree. I think Windows (especially 7) is better than both. But that's entirely subjective. If Microsoft stop selling and supporting software in Europe, it would definitely cause all kinds of problems for individuals and businesses that rely on it though.

 

[roger]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is a nerd argument (no insult intended I'm Comp Sci and a nerd too).

The term "Operating System" has morphed from the days when it referred to the rather minimal system running on big iron. Your description of device abstraction, memory management, and tasking is the job of the kernel. Try to find a linux consumer desktop distro that limits itself to that job. You get several shells (bash, csh, etc) giving you the ls, pwd, etc., commands, you get an HTTP server, the X windowing system, a desktop or two (KDE, Gnome), probably a compiler or two, etc. We refer to those, collectively, as the operating system. Whatever we call it, it makes sense to bundle those together for a typical consumer desktop. You'd make a rather different bundle for a server, for an embedded computer in your car, etc. But you'd choose those bundles based on the needs of the typical user. In any case, no one (for reasonable values of "no one" ) sells only a kernel these days. (I've done a lot of embedded work, so I'm well aware of the exceptions to that. Heck, the embedded stuff I did didn't even have a kernel, but I digress).

Anyway, I view your argument as semantic. There are technical reasons for deciding what does and doesn't go in a kernel (the kernel of a media player is going to support file formats, the kernel of a automobile's cruise control isn't). But there are marketing and usability reasons for what gets bundled in an Operating System, which these days means a kernel plus common sets of utilities.

VMS - more than a kernel
nextsep - more than a kernel
AmigaOS - more than a kernel (lots of multimedia and file handling built in)
SunOS - more than a kernel
Mac OS X - more than a kernel
BeOS - more than a kernel

I don't see why Microsoft should be restricted to only providing a kernel, or why anything beyond the kernel should be a competitor's IP.

 

[cyborg]

Try to find a linux consumer desktop distro that limits itself to that job.

A "linux consumer desktop distro" is not an "OS" then is it? It is a "distro" - which is the linux OS + software.

Now one can argue all they like about the short hand use of "OS" to mean anything in the ecosystem of a particular kernel but since this is about a legal issue I kinda think the semantic argument is important: first you must be clear what it is you are arguing about.

I don't see why Microsoft should be restricted to only providing a kernel, or why anything beyond the kernel should be a competitor's IP.

Neither do I - but then that is the strawman version of the argument.

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

Forcing Microsoft to behave better can only be in my interests.

 

[dtugg]

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

I agree with this. If they made it difficult or impossible for competitors' software to run on Windows, there would be a legitimate complaint. But they are not doing that, at least not anymore. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera and others run just fine on Windows, and arguable better than IE. And it takes but a few minutes to obtain and install any of these browsers.

 

[roger]

A "linux consumer desktop distro" is not an "OS" then is it? It is a "distro" - which is the linux OS + software.

Now one can argue all they like about the short hand use of "OS" to mean anything in the ecosystem of a particular kernel but since this is about a legal issue I kinda think the semantic argument is important: first you must be clear what it is you are arguing about.



Neither do I - but then that is the strawman version of the argument.

What I think is that Microsoft should not be allowed to make it more difficult for a competitor to compete by leveraging their monopoly to make non-Microsoft solutions impossible for arbitrary/hidden technical reasons that would just not fly otherwise.

Forcing Microsoft to behave better can only be in my interests.

Fine, let's call it the Microsoft Windows distro. What have we achieved?

Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to control what their distro contains? Red Hat gets to put in their Red Hat Network Update module, and not supply competitor's products. BeOS gets to provide a windowing system, file support, etc., without providing competing versions. COS (Cray) got to distribute Cray Fortran as part of the 'distro' (dumb Cray, not knowing that they shouldn't have called it an Operating System), but were not forced to supply competitor's compilers. How unfair is that? I wanted to (hypothetically) write a Cray Fortran compiler, but what chances did I have to sell it when you already got a really good one for free? Etc.

In short, I really don't think the courts should be designing software, whether it is in your interests or not. I dispute the 'in your interests' claim, where your=the typical user, not you the specific poster. Microsoft spends a heck of a lot of money figuring out what the typical user wants in a turn key system. I'm estatic that when my mother calls and asks me about her computer I don't have to investigate whether she has Apache or some other HTTP server installed. I know what the Microsoft 'distro' contains, and can pretty quickly get her going. You'll note all the various linux distros include scads of stuff you say shouldn't be bundled for exactly this reason - it's what desktop users want.


EDIT: I think we may perhaps be holding opposite ends of the same stick. I'm talking about the EU ruling itself, and I think you are talking about the Microsoft response to the EU ruling. I think the EU ruling was bad, but agree Microsoft's response was a bit of a butthead reaction.

EDIT2: Richard Stallman disagrees with you. "linux" (what Torvalds developed) was a kernel, then got bundled with a lot of FSF stuff to become an operating system. He wants the operating system to be called GNU/Linux, which of course nobody really does. But again, the Operating System is far more than the kernel. Everyone in the world calls the collection of kernel + utilities the Unix operating system. Source. When every modern operating system uses the term differently than you, it's time to stop arguing, don't you think?

 

[Mitchell314]

Look, if you want to even the playing field, just install a (free) VM, get a Linux disk image, and now no browser is more rooted into the system than any other.

 

[laca]

Then make a better briefcase and you'll eventually gain marketshare.

You do that, I'm better off not going heads-up with a monopoly.

Just like Firefox has done, especially in Europe where it's at something like 35%

Yeah and that might just be because the EC is still making a fuss about Microsoft and its business practices.

 

[GreNME]

There is no doubt that Microsoft has acted improperly in the past. But that was 12 years ago and Netscape doesn't even exist anymore, so I fail to see how it's relevant unless they are doing the same things today, which AFIK, they aren't.

I don't quite agree with this. Microsoft went out of their way to keep the litigation going slow (or in circles) as much as possible during the time between their first charges and the end of their latest. It really is true that time was on their side, because the span of time it took to get any judgments against them really softened the blow to their company, and has softened any public distaste with their (former) activities.

That said, I really don't think it's necessary to have Microsoft perpetually paying the price of handicap compared to everyone else, but right now there's not much else that can be done to keep MS from going all Monopoly on the industry. And honestly, as long as Ballmer's at the helm-- who I feel is less ethical than Gates, even though Gates can be a ruthless bastard when he wants-- I don't mind Microsoft having to operate with what essentially is barely a pinky tied behind its back.

 

[laca]

To all who are missing the point by arguing what should be included in an OS/distro or whatever, I'll reiterate:

It is not about bundling per se. The whole case is about leveraging one's quasi-monopoly power to drive off competition. Period.

 

[TheJim]

I love the MS response. EU tells them to stop bundling they do so and the EU gets its panties in a bunch. Why would the EU expect any other action from MS? So now they don't have to worry about the bogus monopoly charges* and the vast majority of computers will still ship with IE from the OEMs who will almost all have it as the default if they even bother to offer a choice. I can't see why they would include additional browsers either it just increases there support costs and none of them are going to pay for Opera the dog the EU was backing.

*Yes I think its bogus as part of anti trust is that a monopoly has to hurt the consumer, who is a widely supported and free product hurting the consumer? Especially when windows has either gone down in price or stayed the same compared to inflation?