Monday, July 27th 2009
European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability
The European Commission can confirm that Microsoft has proposed a consumer ballot screen as a solution to the pending antitrust case about the tying of Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser with Windows. This followed extensive discussions with the Commission which centred on a remedy outlined in the January 2009 Statement of Objections (see MEMO/09/15) whereby consumers would be shown a "ballot screen" from which they could - if they wished - easily install competing web browsers, set one of those browsers as a default, and disable Internet Explorer. Under the proposal, Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognises the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of web browser, and sets out a means - the ballot screen - by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved. In addition OEMs would be able to install competing web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.
As the Commission indicated in June (see MEMO/09/272 ), the Commission was concerned that, should Microsoft's conduct prove to have been abusive, Microsoft's intention to separate Internet Explorer from Windows, without measures such as a ballot screen, would not necessarily have achieved greater consumer choice in practice and would not have been an effective remedy.
Microsoft has also made proposals in relation to disclosures of interoperability information that would improve the interoperability between third party products and Windows and Windows Server. Again, these proposals require further investigation before the Commission reaches any conclusion as to the next steps.
Microsoft's proposals will be published in full on its website. The Commission has no further comment at this stage.
Source:
Europa
As the Commission indicated in June (see MEMO/09/272 ), the Commission was concerned that, should Microsoft's conduct prove to have been abusive, Microsoft's intention to separate Internet Explorer from Windows, without measures such as a ballot screen, would not necessarily have achieved greater consumer choice in practice and would not have been an effective remedy.
Microsoft has also made proposals in relation to disclosures of interoperability information that would improve the interoperability between third party products and Windows and Windows Server. Again, these proposals require further investigation before the Commission reaches any conclusion as to the next steps.
Microsoft's proposals will be published in full on its website. The Commission has no further comment at this stage.
129 Comments on European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_lawIn anti trust the bigger you get the more scrutiny you are exposed to. Plain and simple.
MS has practically a monopoly in the OS market for PCs. (dominant position)
MS chooses to bundle their IE with the OS, hence gaining a dominant position in the browser market simply by leveraging their dominant position (not competing freely) in the OS market. (leads to a dominant position).
And obviously you can install whatever browser you want, but the average consumer may not know (probably doesn't indeed) there are other alternatives out there.
And that's why this new feature of picking a browser to use upon the Win install is really useless, since as somebody already said "If you know how to install an OS you sure know how to install a new browser for it".
Again, I don't really care if MS bundles its browser with the OS, I just don't like people generalizing things like "The EU makes up the rules as it goes and is out for money etc.". It enforces its laws and specifically anti-trust laws more strictly than other countries.
Do I see the eligibility of this case? - Yes
Do I see the need to actively pursue it? - Probably not.
But then again, if you have certain principles (laws) you should stick to them
Take, for example, the only company that makes Segways is Segway. They are the only manufacturer in the business and as such, have a monopoly. That really doesn't matter. What matters is if Segway does something illegal to prevent competition (buying up competitors, preventing trade with competitors, etc.) and there is no indication that they have.
As the FTC ruled back in 1998 (United States v. Microsoft), Microsoft did nothing wrong but did require, in a settlement, that a board review Microsoft's API code to make certain Microsoft wasn't restricting browser competition.
The EU looked at the same case and found Microsoft guilty. If the laws were virtually the same in the EU as they are in the USA, how can Microsoft be found guilty in one and not the other?
Again, the EU is anti-business, the USA is pro-business (most of the time). Microsoft got fined in EU and not in the USA.
I recommend you read this (and I do mean read it):
www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html
Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman commented that the FTC investigating this at all was dangerous (bigger government). Judging by the FTC verdict and the EU verdict, I'd say the EU has much bigger problems than Microsoft (this fact is mirrored in the Intel case). The EU government is too large, too involved, and too restrictive to be good for anyone.
Again, the problem is the EU governing body has been given too much power, not Microsoft or Intel. The crimes Intel and Microsoft committed pale in comparison to the rights and freedoms Europeans are bound to lose with a government wielding so much power and influence over everything.
What if this corporate harrassment brought on by the EU doesn't stop? What if Microsoft and Intel decide it isn't worth dealing with the EU anymore? What's the likelihood of Intel opening a new fab in the EU (a $2+ billion investment that boosts the local economy)? What's the likelihood of Microsoft opening a support center in the EU? This is only the beginning, not the end. There will be more silly lawsuits and bad rulings to come. I'd flee before the EU entirely enslaves you.
Laws are written buy humans and, as always, humans make mistakes. Just because it was made a law doesn't mean the law should remain. There's lots of prime examples here.
And I'd say it's because the business lobby is much stronger in the US than EU.
The US cuts the business more slack than the EU as a result of this, but the laws are virtually the same (though I'm not an expert...)
As for the what-if argument, the EU is too big of a market to pull out of. And MS and Intel will pursue their business interests to the fullest, as there is a lot of money to make in the EU, they'll just have pay more attention to the competition law.
Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).
Big businesses are bad. Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace. Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more. In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).
No market is ever to big to pull out of. It comes down to profit margins. If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale. No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.
Laws can make it impossible to compete. That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.
and if MS or Intel dont like the laws, THEY CAN LEAVE THAT MARKET.but they arent trying to stop people from supporting it, they did try and stop any other browser from getting activex support.1. activex
2. requiers IE code not W3C code to make a site fully functional, unlike every other browser who was trying to be W3C complyant AND then had to try and figuar out how to make the browser properly display sites that had to be coded spicificly for IE's crap rendering.
and again, if MS or any other company dosnt like the laws of a perticular market, they can just not enter/leave that market, if they choose not to, then they choose to live by the law of that market.
Intel and MS won't withdraw from EU. Where there's a demand, there's someone to supply. It's the people of EU that stand to lose more than Intel and MS from such a move.
want an example, www.roadmasterinc.com/ , they make great quality products BUT they treat employees like crap and hire mostly illegals, getting around the law by helping the illegals get "legal" (they get them identities to use and other peoples ssn's) they dont get in trouble for it because they pay the right people off.
they also treat the employees like utter shit.
oh and I WATCHED THEM pay a fire marshal off to avoid fines due to using extension cords taped to the floor as perm power sources, thats not ethical.....welcome to the real world, dont like it, then talk to your politicians about why they support/dont fight suck actions as you would like.agreed to a point, problem is medium businesses tend to become big businesses if they are successful, so unless your suggesting we limit how large a business can get b4 it has to split into separate entities I dont see any fix.thats what I am saying, if ms/intel/company X dosnt like the rules of a market, just leave the market or dont enter it in the first place, if one of us goes to another country we have to follow the laws or we get arrested and held to that countries laws.dont get me started on tariffs and "free trade" lets just say i feel we need FAIR TRADE not FREE TRADE.
And I dont see a huge loss if Intel left the market for anybody but Intel, EU users could still get AMD and Via cpu's for example.
If MS left the market same deal, I have a feeling mac's and Linux/BSD would gain a nice large market share leading to faster development.
Not saying I wouldnt use windows, and that some people there wouldnt import or pirate it, but the fact is that it wouldnt have the crippling effect on the market that so many people insist it would have, It would just make it clear to MS/Intel/CX that they screwed up by leaving the market.
And anti-trust is not only about business vs. business issues, it is a lot about consumer welfare. But a lot of people seem to forget that.
Fine amounts are not established to ruin a company or milk its cash till it drops dead. Just look at the fines imposed against Intel/MS, they're a fraction of their yearly earnings. And that's why MS/Intel are never going to pull out of the EU.
as to them leaving, I KNOW THEY WONT, and i agree fully that they will adapt, because THEY MAKE MONEY OFF THAT MARKET, if they really couldnt/didnt want to deal with the rules of the EU market they could leave, and all it would do really is hurt them.
I think the merry go round has come around a few too many times.
You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.
EG, if someone told you to lick your PSU to see if it was still working, you would step in and argue.
and OEM wouldn't endup paying more for their AMD chips in EU because it would still be cheaper to just order more for the US plants( if they even have plants/assembly shops over there) and ship the chips/parts to the EU, again your logic fails to function as long as there are 2 companies.
If the price on AMD or INTEL parts are drastically cheaper in one country then in others, people will just order their stuff online and wait for shipping, OEM's on the other hand ALREADY HAVE THEIR CONTRACTS FOR PARTS, if they have to they can just ship the supplies or whole systems over, Normal people wouldnt endup knowing the difference, geeks would because if they wanted intel they would have to import the parts themselves or buy from a specialty shop that imports them(making the cost higher)
good example is the FiiO headphone amps, You can get the e3 for under 7bucks on DX and the e5 is like 17bucks on DX, if you buy them in the states from most retailers you pay 30-80bucks for the same thing!!!( i found 3 places that sold the e5 ALONE for 80bucks!!!) its crazy, BUT with a little searching you can find DX and order them cheap as hell, sure you may have to wait a few weeks if they arent in stock, but hey, its still cheaper($7/$17 is the shipped price) enough cheaper that its worth the wait, You cant tell me geeks wouldnt do the same if Intel or AMD chips where to price inflate the same way as teh FiiO amps do when they cross the big puddle.