IBM, Sun and Adobe join Microsoft antitrust case
Should Internet Explorer be bundled with Windows as standard? A large number of heavyweight tech companies think otherwise.
Called the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), the group describes itself as a non-profit association that “believes strongly in the benefits of a competitive and innovative ICT sector, and seeks to support such an environment by actively participating in the promotion of any initiative aimed at favouring interoperability, competition on the merits, innovation, and consumers' interests in the area of information and communication technology.”
The group has an impressive list of members, which includes Sun Microsystems, IBM, Adobe and Nokia, as well as Corel, Red Hat, RealNetworks and Opera. It was the latter company that first brought the complaint about Internet Explorer to the European Commission, and a number of other groups have since added their support for the case, including the Mozilla Foundation, Google and the Free Software Foundation Europe.
Justifying its interest as a third party, ECIS stated that “despite consistently lower user satisfaction ratings for IE, the Microsoft browser maintains its dominant position as the gateway to the World Wide Web because of illegal bundling with the Windows operating system.”
The organisation also points out that “other browsers that are rated superior to IE cannot compete on their merits. Similar tying practices have already been condemned by both the Commission and European Court of First Instance with respect to Windows Media Player.” Thomas Vinje, a spokesman for ECIS, said that “smaller, more innovative browser developers need a level playing field. That is why there is such broad support for the Commission’s preliminary findings of abuse.”
The European Commission’s original statement of objections was given to Microsoft on 15 January, when the EC said it had reached the preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.”
The EC also added that its findings led it to believe that “the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90 percent of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match.”
The argument about Microsoft’s right to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows has been going on for well over a decade, and Netscape first complained to the US Justice Department about it back in 1996. Is Microsoft entitled to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows as standard, or does the company’s dominance of the OS market stop other browsers from getting a look-in? Will this all change if Internet Explorer is an optional download for Windows 7? Share your thoughts on the European Microsoft anti-trust case in the forums.
Previous Article
48 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyCorrect me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Window's file browser built on the same technology as the internet browser? Until IE7, it used to be that if IE6 crashed, it took Windows Explorer with it...
How are MS supposed to not bundle the internet browser? Also, as DriftCarl says, if a browser isn't included then how do you get others? You can't include ALL browsers in the installation 'cos then people will scream at the bloated install size!
Now; in recent years SOME headway has been made. With proper configuration, IE can be replaced as the default browser, and it's presence in the system nearly unknown. You do need it for some sites, though.
1. If Windows shipped without a browser, how would you download one?
2. If Windows shipped without IE, which browser should it ship with?
3. How come it's OK for Apple to ship OSX with Safari only?
4. Microsoft are very fair about browsers on windows. IE is less aggressive about making itself the default browser than FF and Safari are. If you type a URL into windows explorer, it opens it in your default browser, not IE. It's not like Microsoft are going out of their way to make it hard for other browsers to succeed.
The only reasonable objection that I can think of is that you can't uninstall IE, but that is explained by my first point. It makes sense to have a browser so that you can download things.
:D
Next you'll have other software companies complaining that MS has a monopoly on image viewing software and file browsers.
...oh and that trees have a monopoly on being made into paper. SUE THE TREES!!11!1one
Also as Tulatin states, you tend to need IE running as there are too many developers who are not intelligent enough to make sites/apps which work on all platforms... This isn't refined to amateur sites either. One of the major British banks is also guilty of this.
- Where's the damage? When was the last time someone bought a browser?
- Let the market decide, not the courts. This case supports Socialism and not Capitalism
- M$, although they make sucky products, isn't preventing anyone from innovating. Maybe the innovations just aren't that valuable?
- Maybe there IS NO BROWSER MARKET! Can you imagine if the tire companies tried to do this to the automobile companies? Continuing the analogy, the "aftermarket" is almost always better than stock. However, for most, stock is "good enough"
- Everyone has to start making money the old fashioned way again, by earning it. Stop the redistribution of market share.
- As an engineer, Bill Gates makes me cringe. As an American Capitalist, Bill Gates makes me PROUD.
+1 to Arkanrais. Trees suck too! lol.
Starting with Vista, IE is out of the Shell of Windows. One of the "big" pluses of Longhorn in 2003, was that IE is gone from the file browser system (explorer). This was true until Vista was released, and still true to Win7. Microsoft, finally acknowledge this to be a serious problem when it saw XP being trashed out on a user system with so many exploited security whole (hence the release of SP2 to hold up XP a little bit more for the fresh new core and 80% of the OS redone, called Vista)
Oh please, if Microsoft makes a product, they have every right to bundle it with THEIR operating system.
For the record, I hate Internet Explorer, but it's something that I'm not against being bundled with Windows.
come on, it worthless to ever talk about
Because OSX is a minority compared to Windows.
It's just people bitching about an OS because they can't steal some of the users on the OS to use their own products on said OS.. even though said "products" are free and Microsoft/Windows don't force you in any way to continue using their bundled stuff.
It's just like Windows Media Player.. It's not the best, but you bought an OS, you expect to be able to do something with it apart from seeing a file on your HD..
What's next, Windows Explorer is bad and needs to be removed from Windows?
Bet you 95% of their internal web applications are built to work with IE6/7/8 too.
Hypocritical assholes the lot of em IMO.
:(
Everyone above speaks common sense. There is no such issue anymore about shipping a set browser with an OS.
But the politicians and law enforcers are clearly idiots.. no, retards in fact who represent only a small majority of people who want to hurt microsoft in its wallet.
Lets face it.. all walks of like are like this. People in power tend to ignore the people who voted them there, and act selfishly without any moral being or respect. There is an illusion of democracy in the west, and this is a twisted example of it.
Just watch Gordon Brown's budget next week for another example of it. Hope they all burn in hell.
Hahahaha I was thinking the same! :o
No, because the European Commission will say that it prevent competition from other OS kernels, and should bundle other kernels with it.
If they wanted the E.C can complain about anything. Just because Microsoft has money, that it does a big impact in the news media as it's a large company, and that its an easy target. If Microsoft attempts to do anything to really defend themselves, their image would be seen as an even more evil among Europeans. (Whatever Microsoft do, they look evil, all they can do is pick the path that makes them look less evil, which means smallest media impact If they target someone else, they, as they are smaller, will take up the challenge and create big shakes. Also, attacking small/medium companies will make the E.C look bad. Imagine if they take to court... I don't know... Nintendo for whatever reason, just for the sake of argument. The internet and a lot of media would present titles like "E.C attacking small Japanese company", and crowds of Nintendo fans will complain and, heck, even make protests. And the E.C might be blames that they favor large companies that has the money to not include, what ever Nintendo has, and prevent small/medium companies from growing, or something along that line.
True or not, this is what the E.C seams to be afraid off, so they still attack the big boy.
It's about the browser Internet Explorer, the piece of software that resided in Program Files\Internet Explorer and that can be uninstalled or as someone else pointed, in Windows 7 it can be removed with ease.
People confused IE Core with the IE browser. It's not the same thing!
IE Core CAN'T be removed. If it's removed than any application that ties in the ATL will stop working.
Such applications like Windows Help, Windows Media Player and MSDN Document Explorer won't work... but not only these, WinAmp, MediaMan, ATI Catalyst Control Center, WinRAR and others will stop working properly.
That's what I am talking about. :|
And I'm pretty sure most people are talking about the Internet Explorer browser.
Hence the comparison to Mac OS X and their Safari browser.
Windows can still dl files without the IE Browser interface... it won't be just as fancy.
mmkay, gotcha ;)
What?
Microsoft let you install any browser you want on Windows.
... :s
But yeah, I don't see how this fair. Microsoft made Windows. Microsoft made IE. They should be able to bundle IE with Windows. It's their product.
If Mozilla and Opera want to bundle their internet browsers, they should develop their own OSs to bundle them with. Artificially levelling the playing field in the name of fair competition helps nobody.
Plus, the end user is free to install any OS they want. It's not like Microsoft are stopping you from using Firefox.
Someone should send every response from this story to the PR/legal departments of all the companies involved and show them that nobody supports what they're doing. If Microsoft has to change anything more as a result of this case, it's just going to hurt the end user.
And JyX, what's wrong with IE Core? Products rely on it; why should it be changed or removed for the sake of 'fair' competition?
EDIT: How can Microsoft be accused of anti-competitive behaviour when it actively encourages other browser developers? http://www.flickr.com/photos/robceemoz/2587912633/
P.S. That cake was sent from Redmond to Mozilla when they shipped Firefox 3.
Nothing... you just didn't get what I was "saying".
It's called sarcasm, he's using it.
You can get Opera on the iPhone? Really? From the AppStore? Where? Because I'm not finding it anywhere.
As far as I've been able to tell, the "browsers" on the AppStore are merely reskins of Safari
You're right, there is no difference. Besides, what is IBMs, Google, Adobe, etc have as a solution? MS should load their OS without a browser? Look I like FF more than IE, but you can't please everyone by loading every known browser on an OS. Also how do you plan to get people to the internet the first time?
I guess an application could pop up and you select which you want to install, but that is kind of stupid.
I am glas MS is allowing IE to be disabled in W7, but I sadly many companies only support IE for a browser so you cannot access or download certain things from them.
You guys need to get your sarcasm detectors fixed.
Ho ho there. Fancy smart guy that thinks he is smart.
1- We mean easily and fancy way to download it.
2- We consider average user, as Windows, unlike *inux, is (tries) to be for everyone.
3- Wrong community to show off.
Your average idiot user who can barely use a computer as it is will never be able to figure out how to download something without a browser and a giant 6 foot by 10 foot button that says "DOWNLOAD"
Yea, the average user don't know how to read when get on the computer. It needs a video. j/k
Do you know that those "alternative" products like Opera, Firefox, WinAmp (and I won't list all the media players out there cause there's a lot of them) are made by real people... who need real jobs to support their existence!
Oh, so now you're on the side of... what were all of you calling M$ some time ago? Monopole? Money-hungry corporations that care only for profit?
That's exactly what the EU wants to avoid with these laws that people call them stupid. You like your cozy little lives that mommy and daddy struggle to make for you. You'll grow... and will be subjected to the greed for corporations that don't let the millions of programmers and software architects to breathe. They swallow every little bit of Intellectual Property there is... and if they see a weak player... a small town programmer that did a great application, they'll stump it by copying every idea it holds!
Why do you think IE even got Tabs when that was the trademark of Opera and Mozilla suite? Why do you think WMP even plays MP3's when WMA was the only "viable option" in the opinion of M$?
Grow out of it! M$ is suffocating lots of small time companies and while some of the members of this committee want to take a slice of the market, it will also give other people the chance to prove themselves and also make a living.
Stupid... NOT!
No one is forcing MS to put something on Windows... you've missed the point. Sadly...
"Microsoft certainly does not have a monopoly"
Are you sure?... all the antitrust breaches and fines they got was because they played nice and fair. Right!...
@amacieli... your girl... sure, you can... after I'm done with her! Muhahahaha!