European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft on Browser Compliance

[erocker]

Originally Posted 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.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Microsoft was obliged to make changes, chose to ignore this and will now be fined, seems simple enough to me.

and thankfully microsoft can appeal the decision. why are they only targeted. osx doesnt have to do it and neither do any of the linux/bsd operating systems.

In any event, I fail to see how Microsoft's fine will alleviate the situation in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece or Italy, as America, Asia and several of their European partners (what we normally ambiguously refer to as "market forces") appear intent on ensuring that they do not overcome their present economic problems: in the free market, the misery of others is big business.

this whole sentence is a massive run-on. what is the frog in your avatar smoking? microsoft's fine won't alleviate the situation in the EU. that isn't the point. the point of ALL government is to force people or groups of people into complying with law regardless of whether it makes sense. that is for the courts to decide. so we have another case of a government body acting EXACTLY like a mob boss playing the extorsion game. not only will they tax your profits, they will tell you how you should generate income so that profit can be taxed. bring them all down.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

and thankfully microsoft can appeal the decision. why are they only targeted. osx doesnt have to do it and neither do any of the linux/bsd operating systems.



this whole sentence is a massive run-on. what is the frog in your avatar smoking? microsoft's fine won't alleviate the situation in the EU. that isn't the point. the point of ALL government is to force people or groups of people into complying with law regardless of whether it makes sense. that is for the courts to decide. so we have another case of a government body acting EXACTLY like a mob boss playing the extorsion game. not only will they tax your profits, they will tell you how you should generate income so that profit can be taxed. bring them all down.

Because they don't have 95% of the market like Microsoft does.

In the position they are, they don't need to resort to these kind of tactics and have been warned against them, which apparently, they chose to ignore.

An example:

Dude D goes from country A to country B and commits a crime there: should he be punished from country A laws or country B laws?

Furthermore: what if in country A it's not a crime but in country B it is (which seems more appropriate here)?


If a company want's to do business in other countries, it must make sure it abides by their laws. Microsoft has been warned and chose to ignore it.

Regardless of whether you agree with said law or not, the law is the law and you can't ignore it just because you don't agree with it. If you do, there are consequences.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by HTC

Because they don't have 95% of the market like Microsoft does.

In the position they are, they don't need to resort to these kind of tactics and have been warned against them, which apparently, they chose to ignore.

An example:

Dude D goes from country A to country B and commits a crime there: should he be punished from country A laws or country B laws?

Furthermore: what if in country A it's not a crime but in country B it is (which seems more appropriate here)?


If a company want's to do business in other countries, it must make sure it abides by their laws. Microsoft has been warned and chose to ignore it.

Regardless of whether you agree with said law or not, the law is the law and you can't ignore it just because you don't agree with it. If you do, there are consequences.

in case you havn't been paying attention both apple and android are destroying microsoft in the mobile market and guess which browsers they don't include...

[DannibusX]

I've said it before. All EU SKU's of Windows should no ship with no browser at all.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

in case you havn't been paying attention both apple and android are destroying microsoft in the mobile market and guess which browsers they don't include...

Well: in case you haven't been paying attention, 2 companies can't have a monopoly.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by HTC

Well: in case you haven't been paying attention, 2 companies can't have a monopoly.

duopolies are just as bad. if you are concerned about companies locking you into a specific browser than you need to complain about apple and android. hell, they are using the same tactics microsoft used to increase their market share.

[3870x2]

Originally Posted 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.

I don't see how this could ever be misconstrued: Everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms in their living room.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

duopolies are just as bad. if you are concerned about companies locking you into a specific browser than you need to complain about apple and android. hell, they are using the same tactics microsoft used to increase their market share.

Though i agree with the premise, it's not against the law (for now) and, as such, there's nothing that can be done until laws are changed to encompass this kind of behavior be that behavior from 1, 2, 10 or more companies.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by HTC

Though i agree with the premise, it's not against the law (for now) and, as such, there's nothing that can be done until laws are changed to encompass this kind of behavior be that behavior from 1, 2, 10 or more companies.

well i agree with you. companies should be competing and it is the governments job to make reasonable rules that creates an environment for new companies to come in and compete with new ideas. however that is not what the eu govt body is setting out to do. by targeting microsoft alone they are ignoring the much bigger issue and instead going for the easy prey. if they truly cared about monopolistic behavior they would revamp the laws and stop cohorting with their friends in those competing companies.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

well i agree with you. companies should be competing and it is the governments job to make reasonable rules that creates an environment for new companies to come in and compete with new ideas. however that is not what the eu govt body is setting out to do. by targeting microsoft alone they are ignoring the much bigger issue and instead going for the easy prey. if they truly cared about monopolistic behavior they would revamp the laws and stop cohorting with their friends in those competing companies.

EU is going after Microsoft right now not because they are easy prey but because, under the current law, the have the right to do so. Furthermore: they have been warned this would happen and they chose to ignore the warning.

EU doesn't really have laws to effectively tackle this sort of thing and they "think" it's OK as it is: wrong, IMO.


Have you ever heard of a case where a burglar was robbing a place, the police comes while the burglar is still robbing the place and they say something like this: "If you continue to rob this place you'll have to pay the price"?

You don't do you?


The only scenario where i could see the warning part being needed (companies) is when a law change is implemented in a way where before was legal and after it's not: if there are other such scenarios, then i dunno. Is this what happened in this case? Dunno either.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by HTC

EU is going after Microsoft right now not because they are easy prey but because, under the current law, the have the right to do so. Furthermore: they have been warned this would happen and they chose to ignore the warning.

EU doesn't really have laws to effectively tackle this sort of thing and they "think" it's OK as it is: wrong, IMO.


Have you ever heard of a case where a burglar was robbing a place, the police comes while the burglar is still robbing the place and they say something like this: "If you continue to rob this place you'll have to pay the price"?

You don't do you?


The only scenario where i could see the warning part being needed (companies) is when a law change is implemented in a way where before was legal and after it's not: if there are other such scenarios, then i dunno. Is this what happened in this case? Dunno either.

i disagree. the EU created a bad law to begin with before the mobile market exploded. microsoft's monopoly was never a problem as we see now with apple and android dominating the mobile market. the EU are a bunch of shakedown artists that do not care about the consumer. they only care about lining their pockets which is why they created the terrible law in the first place.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i disagree. the EU created a bad law to begin with before the mobile market exploded. microsoft's monopoly was never a problem as we see now with apple and android dominating the mobile market. the EU are a bunch of shakedown artists that do not care about the consumer. they only care about lining their pockets which is why they created the terrible law in the first place.

You have a key word in that sentence: "before".

Does that make it OK? IMO, no it doesn't. Should they've upgraded the law by now? Absolutely. Whether they haven't done it by now because of shady interests, lack of interest, other cause, dunno

I don't really know when the law Microsoft's infringing was created but, as i said in a previous post, the law is the law and you can't break it just because you disagree with it: there will be consequences if you do.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by erocker

Bah, no need to explain it. If you know one thing about Americans, we don't really care about how the rest of the world "feels" about us. We're the best. The more I look into these objections from the EU, the more they look like the mafia. Just like the government in the US. Fascinating!

OMG!!

[Derek12]

Comparing iOS and Android refering to browsers here??

As far as I understand iOS doesn't allow full browsers with different rendering engines besides the built-in one (Webkit which is mainly made by Appl€), while Android allows Firefox Mobile (Gecko) Opera Mobile (Presto), Dolphin Beta (modified Webkit engine that doesn't use evil CSS prefixes) besides the built in Webkit one. And it's very bad for Web standards, openness and innovation if only a single rendering engine dominates the market (ah... IE6 times) doesn't matter Webkit is cross-platform and open source blah blah.

Appl€ should get a call because of this. At least Windows (and Mac OS) and any mobile OS except iOS allow full third party browsers.

[Prima.Vera]

Yeah, I think Apple and Google are worst than MS is the browser market. Seriously. But Apple is by faar, not only for browser, but for other apps as well. I wouldn't be surprise if the EU will go after them soon...