Wednesday, October 24th 2012

European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft on Browser Compliance

The European Commission has informed Microsoft of its preliminary view that Microsoft has failed to comply with its commitments to offer users a choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft (see IP/09/1941). The sending of a statement of objections does not prejudge the final outcome of the investigation.

In its statement of objections, the Commission takes the preliminary view that Microsoft has failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1, which was released in February 2011. From February 2011 until July 2012, millions of Windows users in the EU may not have seen the choice screen. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that period.

In December 2009, the Commission had made legally binding on Microsoft commitments offered by the US software company to address competition concerns related to the tying of Microsoft's web browser, Internet Explorer, to its dominant client PC operating system Windows (see IP/09/1941, MEMO/09/558 and MEMO/09/559). Specifically, Microsoft committed to make available for five years (i.e. until 2014) in the European Economic Area a "choice screen" enabling users of Windows to choose in an informed and unbiased manner which web browser(s) they wanted to install in addition to, or instead of, Microsoft's web browser. The choice screen was provided as of March 2010 to European Windows users who have Internet Explorer set as their default web browser.

The Commission had opened proceedings to investigate the potential non-compliance with the browser choice commitments on 16 July 2012 (see IP/12/800).

Background on the commitments decision

In January 2009, the Commission sent Microsoft a Statement of Objections, outlining its preliminary view that the company abused its dominant position in the market for client PC operating systems through the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows (see MEMO/09/15). In order to address the Commission's concerns, Microsoft offered commitments, including the set-up of a "ballot screen" in the Windows PC operating system, from which consumers could easily choose their preferred internet browser (see MEMO/09/352). In October 2009, the Commission market tested an improved proposal from Microsoft (see MEMO/09/439).

In light of the reactions to the market test, the Commission concluded that the commitments would remedy its competition concerns and made the commitments legally binding on Microsoft in December 2009, pursuant to Article 9 of the Antitrust Regulation No 1/2003.

More information about the browser choice commitment is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/web_browsers_choice_en.html

Procedural background

A statement of objections is a formal step in Commission investigations. The Commission informs the parties concerned in writing of the objections raised against them and the parties can reply in writing and request an oral hearing to present comments.

The Commission takes a final decision only after the parties have exercised their rights of defence.

If a company has breached commitments made legally binding by way of an Article 9 decision, it may be fined up to 10% of its total annual turnover.
Add your own comment

90 Comments on European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft on Browser Compliance

#1
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
You have so many miss perceptions about a culture its mindbogglingly strange. But that's OK, we are all living on the same planet ya know? We all have the same issues.
No we all not have the same issues. Personal issues yes. Political and/or ideological issues are not even closely the same. And that's the issue, because you think that your ideology is the only valid one and if someone goes against it*, you have to rationalize it as being because they are corrupt and going against that and all moral considerations that you think are the only valid ones.

*for example by punishing one of "your" companies for something YOU think it's not an issue
One day you might wake up to that. Wish you would come on TS so you can see we are all in the same bucket.
Again it's not an issue with people.

PS: Congratulations BTW. I see points 1, 2, and 3 were fully accomplished. I didn't expect any less from the MM. :cool:



Just to remind people of the topic. M$ is going to be punished for failing to comply to a ruling that exempted them from antitrust proceedings and fines regarding bundling of IE into Windows OS, as long as other browsers were also offered as options. This is an issue and anti-competitive behavior because it ties an internet browser to a single OS, and viceversa. The grand mayority of PC users use it for web browsing and any browser is good enough. By bundling it with the OS, no other browser is required and that damages competition. IE is the default winner and does not require to be the superior product to attain and mantain market dominance. This again is an issue, because as many people pointed out in this thread, many websites only work with IE (a direct result of IE's and M$'s market abuse), and IE only works on Windows. Reliance on IE forces reliance on Windows. Chrome, Mozilla and other browsers are a real threat to Windows as users may find that not only they are better, but their experience (which is limited to e-mailing and web browsing, maybe media play) may as well be better in Linux (for example) since those programs are available there, and in fact originated there and Linux is free.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
No we all not have the same issues. Personal issues yes. Political and/or ideological issues are not even closely the same. And that's the issue, because you think that your ideology is the only valid one and if someone goes against it*, you have to rationalize it as being because they are corrupt and going against that and all moral considerations that you think are the only valid ones.

*for example by punishing one of "your" companies for something YOU think it's not an issue



Again it's not an issue with people.

PS: Congratulations BTW. I see points 1, 2, and 3 were fully accomplished. I didn't expect any less from the MM. :cool:



Just to remind people of the topic. M$ is going to be punished for failing to comply to a ruling that exempted them from antitrust proceedings and fines regarding bundling of IE into Windows OS, as long as other browsers were also offered as options. This is an issue and anti-competitive behavior because it ties an internet browser to a single OS, and viceversa. The grand mayority of PC users use it for web browsing and any browser is good enough. By bundling it with the OS, no other browser is required and that damages competition. IE is the default winner and does not require to be the superior product to attain and mantain market dominance. This again is an issue, because as many people pointed out in this thread, many websites only work with IE (a direct result of IE's and M$'s market abuse), and IE only works on Windows. Reliance on IE forces reliance on Windows. Chrome, Mozilla and other browsers are a real threat to Windows as users may find that not only they are better, but their experience (which is limited to e-mailing and web browsing, maybe media play) may as well be better in Linux (for example) since those programs are available there, and in fact originated there and Linux is free.
Windows does nothing to stop you from installing an alternative browser, thus nothing is done that's anti competitive. Your argument is null. Don't wanna use IE? Install Chrome. Don't wanna use Windows? Install Linux as a FREE alternative.

Off topic: We do have the same political issues. You have been conditioned to think different.
Posted on Reply
#3
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
Windows does nothing to stop you from installing an alternative browser, thus nothing is done that's anti competitive. Your argument is null.
YOU think it's null. It's not null. Like I said if something comes preinstalled there's no need to install anything else, and average joe wont do it. A competitive market is that one when 2 equally valid products have the same opportunity to succeed. If there's a bias such as being bundled on an OS package, this balance and success based on merit is completely negated and competition is stifled. That's what anitrust laws were made for.

Antitrust laws are not made to protect companies or its products from other companies or products, they exist to protect PEOPLE by ensuring that a free market, a real one, exists. And this includes minorities, so your point about "use the alternative if you want" is moot. Even if/when IE is the most used browser because the mayority of people are stupid and lazy enough, that does not exclude the right for the "minorities" to have a free market where all alternatives (likewise the one this hypothetical minority wants) have the oportunity to compete in equal terms, and as such succeed and be rewarded on same merits as the competition, and on merits alone. Mozilla does not have the same opportunity to succeed and be rewarded (to thrive) and as such less R&D can be justified and that simply hurts competition.

Off topic: we have very different political issues. You have been conditioned to think they are the same.

And just as an example. Are you worried at least even a bit about your central government being set on making your culture and millenary mother language dissapear in the name of "a stronger Spain"? That's what I thought.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
YOU think it's null. It's not null. Like I said if something comes preinstalled there's no need to install anything else, and average joe wont do it. A competitive market is that one when 2 equally valid products have the same opportunity to succeed. If there's a bias such as being bundled on an OS package, this balance and success based on merit is completely negated and competition is stifled. That's what anitrust laws were made for.

Antitrust laws are not made to protect companies or its products from other companies or products, they exist to protect PEOPLE by ensuring that a free market, a real one, exists.

Off topic: we have very different political issues. You have been conditioned to think they are the same.

And just as an example. Are you worried at least even a bit about your central government being set on making your culture and millenary mother language dissapear in the name of "a stronger Spain"? That's what I thought.
Anti trust laws were setup to make sure one company does not take advantage of its market share with anti competitive acts such as not ALLOWING a competitor to be installed on a personal machine. The EU might as well force MS to install a duel boot of Linux by your standard. It has ZERO ground in reality of a free market. Build a better OS if you don't like whats out there. NOTHING is stopping you. After all thats what Anti-trust laws ALLOW you to do.

As for political issue we face the same thing. English is the dominate language here in the states and our government refuses to acknowledge that as its "Not good for America to be tied to one language" and they are systematically erasing our Constitution line by line to coincide with the world economy. ;) Wanna try again?
Posted on Reply
#5
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
Anti trust laws were setup to make sure one company does not take advantage of its market share with anti competitive acts such as not ALLOWING a competitor to be installed on a personal machine. The EU might as well force MS to install a duel boot of Linux by your standard. It has ZERO ground in reality of a free market. Build a better OS if you don't like whats out there. NOTHING is stopping you. After all thats what Anti-trust laws ALLOW you to do.
Wrong. EU anti-competitive laws contemplate much more than US antitrust laws and includes between a miriad of other things, the one thing that M$ is being punished for. Once again you assume your view is the only one. EU has its laws and if M$ does not want them, they better get out of this market. I personally wouldn't mind. It would give Linux the opportunity it deserves. Valve is already wanting to go Linux anyway, I'm sure the rest will follow eventually and M$ getting out of the EU would only precipitate that change. Only reason I use Windos is for gaming.
As for political issue we face the same thing. English is the dominate language here in the states and our government refuses to acknowledge that as its "Not good for America to be tied to one language" and they are systematically erasing our Constitution line by line to coincide with the world economy. ;)
Not even remotely the same, on so many levels. And coinciding with the world economy is the ONLY way to go, you live in the world, you are not special even if you think that. Not even your Constitution is anyting special and something set in stone, it's just a recolection of rules agreed upon hundreds of years ago. The world has changed, it is primordial that the spine of your laws change accordingly. See once again with the attitude. Don't you realize that's exactly why people like me, say things like I said in this thread?
Posted on Reply
#6
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
As for political issue we face the same thing. English is the dominate language here in the states and our government refuses to acknowledge that as its "Not good for America to be tied to one language" and they are systematically erasing our Constitution line by line to coincide with the world economy. ;)

Not even remotely the same, on so many levels. And coinciding with the world economy is the ONLY way to go, you live in the world, you are not special even if you think that. Not even your Constitution is anyting special and something set in stone, it's just a recolection of rules agreed upon hundreds of years ago. The world has changed, it is primordial that the spine of your laws change accordingly. See once again with the attitude. Don't you realize that's exactly why people like me, say things like I said in this thread?
So since you believe in a one world economy you should have no issue giving up your mother language and national identity. Sorry but you cannot have both. A one world order needs uniformity. Thats why the EU is now centralized. You need to read a history book.

Also the US Constitution gives me freedom of speech in my nation. Freedom of religion and Freedom of the press. I guess those are outdated also? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
So since you believe in a one world economy you should have no issue giving up your mother language and national identity. Sorry but you cannot have both. A one world order needs uniformity. Thats why the EU is now centralized. You need to read a history book.
False. Economy/politics and culture/language have no relation to each other and they are not mutually exclusive. There's absolutely no need to give up my identity to form part of a world economy.

BTW we are back to confirming my view of "americans" at least you show that you think like all the other ones I've ever spoken to. Economy == everything.
Also the US Constitution gives me freedom of speech in my nation. Freedom of religion and Freedom of the press. I guess those are outdated also? :laugh:
Where did I talk about those again?
Posted on Reply
#8
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
False. Economy/politics and culture/language have no relation to each other and they are not mutually exclusive. There's absolutely no need to give up my identity to form part of a world economy.?
Oh really? Then why do worry a central government being set on making your culture and millenary mother language dissapear in the name of "a stronger Spain"? Welcome to the EU friend. Enjoy Germany owning you.


by: Benetanegia
Where did I talk about those again?
You said our laws need to change since "Not even your Constitution is anyting special and something set in stone, it's just a recolection of rules agreed upon hundreds of years ago. ". I was just wondering what laws you would change from our "outdated" Constitution. :laugh: I'm sorry, call me crazy but I still like freedom of speech.
Posted on Reply
#9
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
Oh really? Then why do worry a central government being set on making your culture and millenary mother language dissapear in the name of "a stronger Spain"?
Because economy != government. There's more to it. (I know you can't visualize this concept)

They HAVE taken steps to erase it. It's not an hypothetical situation that I have to worry about, it's real.
You said our laws need to change since "Not even your Constitution is anyting special and something set in stone, it's just a recolection of rules agreed upon hundreds of years ago. ". I was just wondering what laws you would change from our "outdated" Constitution. :laugh:
Second amendment would be a good place to start, but it's not related to this topic and I know it will enrage many people, so... just ignore.

Regarding other things, there's many and I don't know the details enough to discuss it here. What I do know is that EVERY other country has changed their laws over the time to adapt to the changing world reality and as much as you might think it's not necessary for your constitution. IT IS.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
Because economy != government. There's more to it. (I know you can't visualize this concept)



Second amendment would be a good place to start, but it's not related to this topic and I know it will enrage many people, so... just ignore.

Regarding other things, there's many and I don't know the details enough to discuss it here. What I do know is that EVERY other country has changed their laws over the time to adapt to the changing world reality and as much as you might think it's not necessary for your constitution. IT IS.
Our Constitution has changed and evolved over 200 years. We have added well over 27 amendments and THOUSANDS of new laws since it was ratified. Again I don't think you have a firm grasp on the US as well as you think. Oh and I know your culture is being erased. It has to be for it to fit into a centralized Europe. They have to remove your identity for everyone to fall in line.
Posted on Reply
#11
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
Our Constitution has changed and evolved over 200 years. We have added well over 27 amendments and THOUSANDS of new laws since it was ratified. Again I don't think you have a firm grasp on the US as well as you think.
And how many have been revised? Look I know it has changed, but not as much as others. Anyway I'm addressing your post. You talked about changing the Constitution as a bad thing. Many "americans" think that. It's not. So once again, and seeing as how you know aknowledge it has actually changed (nice 180 turn BTW), why shouldn't change again? Why is it something you are so worried about?

BTW you are just changing the subject after every turn, moving forward so that the subject doesn't catch you. Did you notice that?
Oh and I know your culture is being erased. It has to be for it to fit into a centralized Europe. They have to remove your identity for everyone to fall in line.
Not at all.

And by centralized I meant Madrid BTW, not the EU.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
And how many have been revised? Look I know it has changed, but not as much as others. Anyway I'm addressing your post. You talked about changing the Constitution as a bad thing. Many "americans" think that. It's not. So once again, and seeing as how you know aknowledge it has actually changed (nice 180 turn BTW), why shouldn't change again? Why is it something you are so worried about?
Not all Amendments were just to begin with and as you said its evolved for the better in some cases. However some still very much apply today and are being challenged for mischievous reasons. A changing Constitution is a beautiful thing. Changing it to REMOVE rights is a different story. Its the removing personal liberties that bothers Americans.
Posted on Reply
#13
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
Not all Amendments were just to begin with and as you said its evolved for the better in some cases. However some still very much apply today and are being challenged for mischievous reasons. A changing Constitution is a beautiful thing. Changing it to REMOVE rights is a different story. Its the removing personal liberties that bothers Americans.
Which rights are being taken away.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
Which rights are being taken away.
Look up the Patriot Act and the NDAA for starters. They even took away our right to drink booze one time! I think even a commie like you will be blown away by something like that! (j/k) :laugh: :toast:

Anyway we should get back on topic.
Posted on Reply
#15
Benetanegia
I meant related to:
they are systematically erasing our Constitution line by line to coincide with the world economy
And becase it's related to some of my previous posts. Patriot Act, Bush... you voted him, TWICE. I mean not you, but a mayority of US citizens.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
I meant related to:



And becase it's related to some of my previous posts. Patriot Act, Bush... you voted him, TWICE. I mean not you, but a mayority of US citizens.
NDAA was Obama. He was supposed to be the opposite of Bush......he was just Bush 2.0. apparently.

NDAA removed our right to a speedy and fair trial if the government deems you a "terrorist". It also allows unlimited detainment without trial.

ANYWAY we need to get on topic. I say EU sucks. You say MS sucks. We agree to disagree. Savvy? :toast:
Posted on Reply
#17
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: Benetanegia
And becase it's related to some of my previous posts. Patriot Act, Bush... you voted him, TWICE. I mean not you, but a mayority of US citizens.
You may think we vote these people in then gripe cause he in office but I have seen it time and time again, ALL POLITICIANS LIE TO GET IN OFFICE, then they do whatever they want. This is why I refused to vote anymore cause it makes no difference which one we get cause were fucked either way.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: brandonwh64
You may think we vote these people in then gripe cause he in office but I have seen it time and time again, ALL POLITICIANS LIE TO GET IN OFFICE, then they do whatever they want. This is why I refused to vote anymore cause it makes no difference which one we get cause were fucked either way.
Ron Paul I think was an exception IMO.
Posted on Reply
#19
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: TheMailMan78
Ron Paul I think was an exception IMO.
Yea but no one will EVER vote for him cause their BLIND!
Posted on Reply
#20
Benetanegia
by: brandonwh64
You may think we vote these people in then gripe cause he in office but I have seen it time and time again, ALL POLITICIANS LIE TO GET IN OFFICE, then they do whatever they want. This is why I refused to vote anymore cause it makes no difference which one we get cause were fucked either way.
Yeah but it was voted twice. No escuses there man.

As to the latest sentence, in one way or another we all feel the same everywhere. But it's not completely true, tho having more than 2 options does help.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
Yeah but it was voted twice. No escuses there man.

As to the latest sentence, in one way or another we all feel the same everywhere. But it's not completely true, tho having more than 2 options does help.
FYI he wasn't even voted in a second time. Dunno if you knew that.
Posted on Reply
#22
Benetanegia
by: TheMailMan78
FYI he wasn't even voted in a second time. Dunno if you knew that.
:confused: Really confused. Then how did he win 2004 elections against John Kerry?
Posted on Reply
#23
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Benetanegia
:confused: Really confused. Then how did he win 2004 elections against John Kerry?
Bush lost the popular vote against Gore. Gore should have been our president. I didn't like Gore but the election was stolen from him. Not that it matters anyway, I think the Dems and the Repubs are both jerks. Sorry I should have said the FIRST election.

Edit: Anyway I'm done. lol Im not gonna post anymore off topic stuff before we BOTH get an ear full.
Posted on Reply
#24
UbErN00b
Whoops I'm in the wrong thread, I thought this was the "European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft on Browser Compliance" thread not the "TheMailMan78 and Benetanegia back and forth bitching thread" ?? :confused:

The EU is so far up it's own arse it can't see what day it is, this is nothing compared to their ludicrous human rights laws and the 100's of other useless laws and regulations that come out of Brusels, the EU should be disbanded ASAP IMO, either that or at the very least the UK get someone into power who has the balls to tell all the eurocrats to sling their hooks, can't come sooner.

OT, every single phone I have bought comes with it's own browser, as does IOS and OSX and countless other operating systems, what exactly is the bloody problem?
Posted on Reply
#25
erocker
by: UbErN00b
Whoops I'm in the wrong thread, I thought this was the "European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft on Browser Compliance" thread not the "TheMailMan78 and Benetanegia back and forth bitching thread" ??
No, you're correct. It is time to let others chime in this thread. Benetanegia and TheMailMan can take their personal conversation to PM's.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment