No IE in Windows 7 in Europe!!!

[seedubya]

It's like sueing Ford for installing factory stereo's in thier cars.

No it's not. That would only be true if Ford had 90%-ish of the world car market. And they told independent dealers that they couldn't sell Kenwood stereos as an upgrade. And if dealers dared to do so they increased the wholesale prices of the cars or reduced the supply to a trickle or even threatened the smaller dealers with complete withdrawal of their products entirely. So, following a complaint by Kenwood to the EU Ford was ordered to quit such practices and let the dealers do what they want because it's a free market. At this point Blaupunkt and Pioneer said "Ford had been doing that to us too, y'know". So Ford said "F**k Eu" (bad pun) and the EU said "Oh really, we'll see about that" and hit them with an €800m fine for abuse of a monopoly position because that is ILLEGAL. Geddit? ILLEGAL. This is not a "law suit", this is a government bringing charges of illegal business activity against a company. The EU didn't try to break them up or increase the market share of other stereo makers. They just tried to ensure consumers got some choice and that an arrogant b****rd company that thought they could thumb their noses at a regional government got slapped back into its place.

 

[MrMille]

They'll just put a few links in the OS that will run a script to FTP down a binary for Opera, FireFox, IE, etc. Just my thoughts.

 

[MHCG]

They just tried to ensure consumers got some choice and that an arrogant b****rd company that thought they could thumb their noses at a regional government got slapped back into its place.

Huh? Microsoft was monopolizing the browser market because they were providing the product for FREE. Microsoft never prevented anyone from purchasing Netscape Navigator and installing it if they wanted other than by giving consumers a deal and making it ridiculous for anyone to want to pay money for browser software

So now because of Microsoft, you no longer have to pay Netscape money for a browser and you're complaining that they're arrogant?

The logical extension of this is that Solitaire and Mah Jong video game manufacturers should sue Microsoft.

 

[MHCG]

I also have a hard time understanding how a company makes money from a browser. Aren't they free for download? I don't see them generating pop ups. Where does the money come from? I know I'm missing something, there has to be money in it somewhere or there wouldn't be a fuss. OK, when you get a browser the home page is usually set to their page but that's usually the first thing a user changes. Educate me.

There WAS money to be made in browsers because you used to have to buy Netscape Navigator until Microsoft provided it for free in Windows. Eventually they provided it for free online, but still sold it in stores.

 

[seedubya]

Huh? Microsoft was monopolizing the browser market because they were providing the product for FREE. Microsoft never prevented anyone from purchasing Netscape Navigator and installing it if they wanted other than by giving consumers a deal and making it ridiculous for anyone to want to pay money for browser software

So now because of Microsoft, you no longer have to pay Netscape money for a browser and you're complaining that they're arrogant?

The logical extension of this is that Solitaire and Mah Jong video game manufacturers should sue Microsoft.

Giving something away for free in order to kill competition, when you are in a monopoly position, is abuse of dominant market position. That's also illegal in the US. I presume you've heard of the various anti-trust laws.

MahJong is not a browser. Browsers are essential to the everyday users PC experience.

Also, where does everyone get SUE from? There is no "law suit", the only people to take a case against MS is the EU. This is not a civil issue it is one of company law. What MS have been doing is illegal. They were given a number of opportunities to comply with the rulings of the Court of First Instance. They chose not to do so. As a result of their refusal they have been fined. Tough!! If MS choose to operate in this market then they can damn well obey the law. This is not the US where big business lobbyists determine the outcome to everything in advance. Not yet anyway.

 

[MrMille]

giving something away for free in order to kill competition, when you are in a monopoly position, is abuse of dominant market position. That's also illegal in the us. I presume you've heard of the various anti-trust laws.

Mahjong is not a browser. Browsers are essential to the everyday users pc experience.

Also, where does everyone get sue from? There is no "law suit", the only people to take a case against ms is the eu. This is not a civil issue it is one of company law. What ms have been doing is illegal. They were given a number of opportunities to comply with the rulings of the court of first instance. They chose not to do so. As a result of their refusal they have been fined. Tough!! If ms choose to operate in this market then they can damn well obey the law. This is not the us where big business lobbyists determine the outcome to everything in advance. Not yet anyway.

+10000000000

 

[MHCG]

Giving something away for free in order to kill competition, when you are in a monopoly position, is abuse of dominant market position. That's also illegal in the US. I presume you've heard of the various anti-trust laws.

MahJong is not a browser. Browsers are essential to the everyday users PC experience.

Also, where does everyone get SUE from? There is no "law suit", the only people to take a case against MS is the EU. This is not a civil issue it is one of company law. What MS have been doing is illegal. They were given a number of opportunities to comply with the rulings of the Court of First Instance. They chose not to do so. As a result of their refusal they have been fined. Tough!! If MS choose to operate in this market then they can damn well obey the law. This is not the US where big business lobbyists determine the outcome to everything in advance. Not yet anyway.

What's the difference between Solitaire and Internet Explorer? They're both programs that Microsoft has effectively killed the market for by providing them free of charge? What about fax software, we used to have to pay for that too?

Your argument is essentially that Microsoft is only allowed to do what it is doing now and no more even though the consumer is the beneficiary. Who gets to make the arbitrary decision on which piece of software qualifies and which doesn't?

Your argument seems to be rooted in the idea the idea that a company with big market share = bad even though consumers are choosing of their own free will to support Microsoft.

 

[seedubya]

What's the difference between Solitaire and Internet Explorer? They're both programs that Microsoft has effectively killed the market for by providing them free of charge? What about fax software, we used to have to pay for that too?

That statement, if you think about it, actually works in favour of my argument.

Your argument is essentially that Microsoft is only allowed to do what it is doing now and no more even though the consumer is the beneficiary. Who gets to make the arbitrary decision on which piece of software qualifies and which doesn't?

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that A) MS is a monopoly B) Abuse of market position by a monopoly is a crime C) MS did in fact commit instances of said crime and D)By refusing to comply with the LAW in the EU they have placed themselves in this position

Your argument seems to be rooted in the idea the idea that a company with big market share = bad even though consumers are choosing of their own free will to support Microsoft.

Big does not equal bad. Uncontrolled monopoly = bad. Uncontrolled monopoly deliberately ignoring court rulings = much worse.

As for consumers "choosing" to support MS. Yeah right. See my earlier response to Gunslinger.

If you came to Ireland in the morning to set up a business, would you expect to be subject to and to obey the local laws? If you go working in Saudi Arabia tomorrow are you going to start brewing your own moonshine and expect to get away with it?

I am not anti-MS, despite this thread. I am in favour of big business being subject entirely to the will of the people as expressed through their government and laws. Intel are next, btw.

 

[angry_geek]

@angry geek - do you REALLY think the EU went after MS for money? Seriously!?

Also, where does everyone get SUE from? There is no "law suit", the only people to take a case against MS is the EU. This is not a civil issue it is one of company law. What MS have been doing is illegal. They were given a number of opportunities to comply with the rulings of the Court of First Instance. They chose not to do so. As a result of their refusal they have been fined. Tough!! If MS choose to operate in this market then they can damn well obey the law. This is not the US where big business lobbyists determine the outcome to everything in advance. Not yet anyway.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/1719225

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/opera-files-eu-antitrust-suit-against-microsoft-for-bundling-ie/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20818452/

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit...les-eu-antitrust-ruling-and-intel-faces-fines

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10171522-75.html

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/12/eu-hits-microsoft-with-357-million-fine/

Would you like some more links, or will this be enough to convince you that there are in fact LAWSUITS, that MS is being SUED by these companies and the EU? As far as the EU suing for money? Where do you think the money from all these fines and lawsuits go? Feeding starving children in Ireland? The lawyers and legislators are getting their pockets lined and boats reupholstered just like the dirty politicians and lawyers in this country. It's bs! It's like suing your competition because they're bigger than you are or they have a contract with a company that prevents you from being able to work on their systems. I agree that it would be nice if it were easier to uninstall IE, but come on!! Billions in fines because of a browser? Should I sue the bank because their website doesn't work right in Firefox?

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R...&cts=1245186702555&aq=0&oq=eu+lawsuit+&aqi=g1

 

[seedubya]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/1719225

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/opera-files-eu-antitrust-suit-against-microsoft-for-bundling-ie/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20818452/

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit...les-eu-antitrust-ruling-and-intel-faces-fines

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10171522-75.html

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/12/eu-hits-microsoft-with-357-million-fine/

Would you like some more links, or will this be enough to convince you that there are in fact LAWSUITS, that MS is being SUED by these companies and the EU? As far as the EU suing for money? Where do you think the money from all these fines and lawsuits go? Feeding starving children in Ireland? The lawyers and legislators are getting their pockets lined and boats reupholstered just like the dirty politicians and lawyers in this country. It's bs! It's like suing your competition because they're bigger than you are or they have a contract with a company that prevents you from being able to work on their systems. I agree that it would be nice if it were easier to uninstall IE, but come on!! Billions in fines because of a browser? Should I sue the bank because their website doesn't work right in Firefox?

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R...&cts=1245186702555&aq=0&oq=eu+lawsuit+&aqi=g1

Did you actually read any of those links? Every single one of them refers directly or indirectly to an anti-trust case, which is the commercial equivalent of an criminal trial, taken by the EU against MS some of which is based on complaints made by various competitors of MS. Don't forget this all started back in 2004 and MS has been trying to wriggle out since. The whole "It's only a browser" response is spurious. This case is about monopoly abuse - browsers are just the weapons of choice. This is not like "suing your competition because they're bigger than you are or they have a contract with a company that prevents you from being able to work on their systems", it's more like the teacher putting the 10 year old school bully on detention for stealing the 4 year old's lunch money and beating him up when he stood up to him. As for where the money goes ... study how the European Commission works before you make sweeping statements.

Word of advice - don't go making jokes about starving children to Irish people. It's kinda like making jokes about jumping WTC occupants i.e. not at all funny and considered very, very tasteless.

 

[MHCG]

Big does not equal bad. Uncontrolled monopoly = bad

What is an "uncontrolled monopoly" exactly? I assume you mean coercive monopoly. My position is that coercive monopolies are impossible without government interference.

Again, what's the difference between Microsoft killing the market for internet browsers and solitaire? The answer is nothing, so ultimately your anti-trust laws are arbitrary and essentially left as the playground of politicians that get to "strike a blow" for the little guy while enriching themselves.

 

[seedubya]

What is an "uncontrolled monopoly" exactly? I assume you mean coercive monopoly. My position is that coercive monopolies are impossible without government interference.

Yes, I mean coercive. You may be right, I don't know any way to test that hypothesis.

Again, what's the difference between Microsoft killing the market for internet browsers and solitaire? The answer is nothing, so ultimately your anti-trust laws are arbitrary and essentially left as the playground of politicians that get to "strike a blow" for the little guy while enriching themselves.

You're absolutely right, there is no difference. I came to that conclusion in my last reply. Browsers are merely the instrument of confrontation. It could just as easily have been solitaire. However, MS haven't been engaging in monopolistic behaviours with regard to solitaire e.g. coercing OEMs etc.

EDIT: The EU doesn't have a problem with MS BEING a monopoly - they have a problem with the abuse of that market position.

PS I'd be interested to know how government intervention creates coercive monopolies.

 

[angry_geek]

Did you actually read any of those links? Every single one of them refers directly or indirectly to an anti-trust case, which is the commercial equivalent of an criminal trial, taken by the EU against MS some of which is based on complaints made by various competitors of MS. Don't forget this all started back in 2004 and MS has been trying to wriggle out since. The whole "It's only a browser" response is spurious. This case is about monopoly abuse - browsers are just the weapons of choice. This is not like "suing your competition because they're bigger than you are or they have a contract with a company that prevents you from being able to work on their systems", it's more like the teacher putting the 10 year old school bully on detention for stealing the 4 year old's lunch money and beating him up when he stood up to him. As for where the money goes ... study how the European Commission works before you make sweeping statements.

Word of advice - don't go making jokes about starving children to Irish people. It's kinda like making jokes about jumping WTC occupants i.e. not at all funny and considered very, very tasteless.

Sorry about the children line. However, I was using that to illustrate my point. The EU was supposed to end poverty, make everyone equal and fair, and be open to the people. (I think another government tried this. Hmmm) If this were the case, then why is Ireland still so impoverished?

As for how the EU works? Give me a break. I have a pretty good understanding of the EU and how it is supposed to operate; I'm not an idiot. But they are no different than any other current government. Just google EU corruption, and see how many news articles you come back with. You complain about MS and Ford doing bad things like hindering dealers and choices. Meanwhile the EU operates behind closed doors with near complete autonomy.

I did read the links. Did you?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/opera-files-eu-antitrust-suit-against-microsoft-for-bundling-ie/
Opera just filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft . . .

Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

I just don't understand what the difference is between having to dl your browser or having one prepackaged. Also it should be fair and common among MS's competitors. If MS can't ship with IE, then Apple should be forced to ship without Safari. The EU hasn't seen fit to go after Apple yet. I can't even begin to imagine why not. That company is just as guilty as MS when it comes to bullying the competition in many more areas than just browsers. In the US, it's one patent infringement after another filed against Apple.

I'm not trying to defend MS here, just playing devil's advocate to give the other side a voice. Don't make it personal, and, in the future, don't try to insult my intelligence. I would appreciate it if we can keep this debate civil.

 

[seedubya]

If this were the case, then why is Ireland still so impoverished?

The text below is posted directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States

"On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.[4] On the Economist's quality-of-life index the United States ranked 13th, in between Finland and Canada, scoring 7.6 out of a possible 10. The highest given score of 8.3 was applied to Ireland. This particular index takes into account a variety of socio-economic variables including GDP per capita, life expectancy, political stability, family life, community life, gender equality, and job security.[5]"

Could you even pick out Ireland on a map?

 

[seedubya]

Sorry about the children line. However, I was using that to illustrate my point.

First of all, no offence was taken at all. I'm simply letting you know on a point of cultural difference.

The EU was supposed to end poverty, make everyone equal and fair, and be open to the people. (I think another government tried this. Hmmm)

The EU wasn't supposed to do any such thing. If you want to know the purpose of the EU look at http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/1/
As for other government that was set up to "make everyone equal and fair, and be open to the people". How about the good old US of A? "All men are created equal under God" for instance or even "government of the people, for the people and by the people".

As for how the EU works? Give me a break. I have a pretty good understanding of the EU and how it is supposed to operate; I'm not an idiot. But they are no different than any other current government.

The EC and the EP are not and do not constitute a government. The EU is not a United States of Europe or anything like it. It is a body for economic and social co-operation. Every member state has a full veto on every law that's enacted and retains full sovereignty. Any member state that wishes can pull out whenever they want. It would be economic suicide to do so but it could be done.

So yeah, they're just a little different to any current government.

I did read the links. Did you? Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

I'll give you this as semantics.

I just don't understand what the difference is between having to dl your browser or having one prepackaged. Also it should be fair and common among MS's competitors. If MS can't ship with IE, then Apple should be forced to ship without Safari. The EU hasn't seen fit to go after Apple yet. I can't even begin to imagine why not. That company is just as guilty as MS when it comes to bullying the competition in many more areas than just browsers. In the US, it's one patent infringement after another filed against Apple.

I'm not trying to defend MS here, just playing devil's advocate to give the other side a voice. Don't make it personal, and, in the future, don't try to insult my intelligence. I would appreciate it if we can keep this debate civil.

Apple is not in a monopoly position in the desktop computer OS marketplace when taken as a whole. It certainly does have its faults and like any large company has ONLY one over-riding goal - to maximise share price.

Anyhoo I'm off to bed as it's midnight here.

 

[MHCG]

EDIT: The EU doesn't have a problem with MS BEING a monopoly - they have a problem with the abuse of that market position.

Once a company is deemed to be a monopoly by an arbitrary government decree, how is the company supposed to create new products?

Ultimately Netscape failed because it was an inferior product and they couldn't figure out how to compete in a changing market.

Now with all of that being said, because of patent law, Microsoft does have government protection of its intellectual property. Along with a governmnent granted monopoly on the technology comes regulation.

 

[gunslinger]

Your argument seems to be rooted in the idea the idea that a company with big market share = bad even though consumers are choosing of their own free will to support Microsoft.

Exactly my point. No one is being forced to use Microsoft products.

 

[angry_geek]

Could you even pick out Ireland on a map?

Really? That's the best you could come up with? You disappoint me.

I understand what the poverty statistics say. I understand what the economists say. I also understand what I can see for myself. My aunt just returned from a trip to Shannon, Ireland. They decided to get a map and go to as many of the old castles and embattlements they could find. She said she couldn't believe some of the areas they visited and the poverty she saw. She said it reminded her of Eastern Kentucky or some places she visited in Peru. This is what I based my statements on. I fail to see the relevance of a Wikipedia article about US standard of living stats.

I also know and understand that the EU is not a government. I'm trying to use simple terms that everyone understands instead of paragraphs of definitions that anyone else can look up.

The EC and the EP are not and do not constitute a government. The EU is not a United States of Europe or anything like it. It is a body for economic and social co-operation. Every member state has a full veto on every law that's enacted and retains full sovereignty. Any member state that wishes can pull out whenever they want. It would be economic suicide to do so but it could be done.

Maybe mafia would be more appropriate a term to describe the EU.

OK I apologize to all for digressing. Excluding IE from Win 7 is stupid. Being forced to include Firefox, Opera, and/or other browsers just gives a bloated product and is stupid. The ideas that seedubya and others brought up were based on MS abusing its power as a monopoly and bullying other companies or making it difficult to use another browser.

In Washington, Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said the European ruling “may have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition.”

“In the United States, the antitrust laws are enforced to protect consumers by protecting competition, not competitors,” he said in a statement. “In the absence of demonstrable consumer harm, all companies, including dominant firms, are encouraged to compete vigorously.”

IN MY OPINION, I don't see where MS is guilty of forcing users to buy MS. The lack of viable competition makes it difficult to go somewhere else, I don't think it's MS's fault. If they bundle the products, make it impossible to install other software, or punish the end user for trying to do so, then I can see a problem. However, in the case of the EU's lawsuits, complaints, hearings, trials (whatever you want to call them), I just don't see this.

 

[seedubya]

Just one more reply

Once a company is deemed to be a monopoly by an arbitrary government decree, how is the company supposed to create new products?

I don't know. Why is it important? Either the company will find a way OR it will cease to be a monopoly and will either compete again or cease to exist. It's not like someone died. The capital in the company will end up elsewhere.

Ultimately Netscape failed because it was an inferior product and they couldn't figure out how to compete in a changing market.

Agreed, but this current situation isn't anything to do with Netscape except in the broadest sense. See this link for the history and current status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case

 

[seedubya]

My comment about the map is made out of the now unshakeable belief that you don't have a clue what you're going on about when it comes to either Ireland or the EU.

OMFG!! Did you even read the link? Completely? Really? Well go back and read it again. And this time read the whole thing. We have the highest quality of life in the world. Period.

As for your aunt - well whatever, some people just see what they want/expect to see. Maybe she was confusing topography with demography? I live here and your aunt is just plain wrong. The area in the west that she would have visited is deliberately kept underdeveloped to cater to American tourists who expect colleens, leprechauns and John Wayne in "The Quiet Man".

Impoverished? I live in a house that's (even now) valued at approx. US$350,000 and earn about US$100,000 AFTER tax. I just came back from a 3 week holiday in Florida which cost me approx. $20,000. My wife home educates our kids because she can afford to, i.e. she doesn't need to work outside the home. BTW, that kind of income is not unusual here, above average but not massively so. Yes, the cost of living is higher here but not so much that I'd be better off in the States. Please send me your charity, I'm so poor in my miserable existence in this poor little underdeveloped country.

Mafia? WTF are you on about?

Well of course an Assistant AG is going to say something like that. After all the US AG never managed to make an anti-trust case really stick against MS, ever. I wonder why that is?

Finally, neither your opinion nor mine has any bearing on this discussion. MS is guilty of breaking EU competition law. That has been determined in not one but two courts of law. They're the facts and if you can't see those well - why am I not surprised.