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
Dont talk to me about no merit.
The court simply couldn't mandate (like the EU court did) that Microsoft not offer IE inside of Windows.
Since when in a civilized free market you're punished cause you wanna offer addons. I get perfumes that include the same brand aftershave, I get cereals with chocolates wrapped up, I get Nero which includes many unrelated software. Recently, I bought a Samsung cellphone and the company gave me the Samsung bluetooth headphones for free, no one wouldn't have thought about complaining because they didn't have "options" of headphones from Ericsson or Nokia.
For instance, maybe I'd appreciate if M$ bundled a free antivirus with Windows, whether I like it or not, it'd be just fine if I'm given the power to blow it away anytime.
Firefox, IE, safari, chrome
MSN, yahoo, AIM, skype.
Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google. In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).
We also can't forget that if you embed one of these browsers into the OS and it has a vulnerability, that makes Windows have a vulnerability too when installed from scratch (e.g. Sasser/Blaster worms). Instead of the problem being Google's, Apple's, or Mozilla's, the problem is now Microsoft's. They have to get on whomever is responsible and get a critical update out on their update software (major PITA especially considering these rivals aren't likely to be cooperative).
It just goes on and on and on.
Most likely, the Windows 7 installer has some kind of Internet Browser although it isn't a browser per say. It is merely code the facilitates Internet networking (in effect, an unwindowed Internet Explorer). This internal networking code is also used to get updates from Microsoft.
When you make your selection of what browser to use, the code will fetch the most recent version from the provider and either launch it once you are in Windows or run it right then and there. Internet Explorer is still there, you just can't find it. It isn't a windowed application unless you choose Internet Explorer which in turn installs the GUI.
Internet Explorer is still the only browser packaged with Windows (this violates the EU ruling which is why you still need an E version) but it makes it easy to get the other popular browsers too.
Duh.And you're gonna say NO?
Mozilla would probably give an arm up for that chance.
This is what happens when you try to legislate everything. Everything gets muddled in legalities to a point of collapse.
MS cant get in trouble, for someone else saying no.
What stops Microsoft from getting swamped by a horde of unheard of browsers that also are excluded? This is an all or nothing situation and the legal ramifications of this in the long term are almost incomprehensible.
In effect, the EU is inviting Microsoft to be hammered by lawsuits over and over again until the end of time using the previous rulings as leverage.
This is why Microsoft pays lawyers, afterall.
Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.
Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.
Not expecting the EU to do this is like expecting a field commander in a war to give instructions for an initial attack plan and then never re-assesing the situation as it changes. It's blind and stupid. For once, a Government is doing something right (Regardless of whether M$ should be changing it or not).
MS's IP should not be the business of ANY govt body, unless there is copyright infringement involved. They should be allowed to code their software however they see fit, not how the EU deems acceptable.
As such, its removal was very unreasonable as it created a lot of problems for Microsoft and more knowledgable users. Instead of Explorer/Internet Explorer practically being the same, they now had to send all internet requests to Internet Explorer and all other traffic requests from Internet Explorer to Explorer. As proof of this, open up Explorer (aka My Computer) and type in www.cnn.com. It will open a new instance of Internet Explorer 7/8 or create a new tab in an already exisiting Internet Explorer and open the site. Likewise, if you type C:\ in Internet Explorer, it will open Explorer and point it to C:\. In IE5 and IE6, both would do everything--they were practically one in the same.
In this sense, Internet Explorer was just a marketing name because most users wouldn't think to type "http://" in My Computer to get web access. They gave it that name and the pretty picture to assist users in the usability department (I want Internet -> "Internet Explorer" might satisfy that want).
To respond directly to your statement: The OS breaks when you remove Internet Explorer because you are also removing Explorer (the kernel). No operating system works without a kernel so it should "break."
Even with IE7/IE8 not installed, you still have Explorer with 99% of the features of Internet Explorer. Explorer still needs Internet access to activate and update. Effectively, the previous ruling and this ruling changes nothing except handoffs between Internet Explorer and Explorer for different types of requests. The only thing the "E" version doesn't have is the Internet Explorer GUI.
Google is going to try to do the same thing with Chrome OS except, instead of starting with Explorer and adding Internet capability to it, they are going to start with Chrome and add Linux kernel capabilities to it. Chrome OS, in every way, should be in the same ball of wax Microsoft is currently in.It wasn't fair game to begin with. It wasn't then, it still isn't now. Consumers are getting screwed by this because now you need more apps to do the same tasks that could have been done with one previously.
Laws/rules to fit the personal needs of the organization regulating?
This is why there is a seperation between the law making body, and the Judicial branch. To keep things like this in check. If it were unconstitutional in any form it should obviously be unenforcable.
If this system is not functioning, this case has a bigger precident than just impacting the Browser market.
They just have the same problem we have in the US.
Laws do not accomodate modern technology(Because there is a loophole around every corner). Welcome to Earth, year 2009. The Digital revolution awaits.
support.apple.com/kb/HT1338
And where there is the word "update," it is most likely utilizing an underlying, GUI-less internet codebase integrated into the kernel. Hell, Internet is just hyper-text on TCP port 80. Anything that handles TCP/UDP could and should have the ability to render HTTP pages. There's no need to separate the HTTP renderer and label it as a "browser." That same "HTTP render" could be used to also render the GUI for local folder browsing.
My point: we don't need laws that dictate how an application is implemented unless, as Wile E stated, there is a copyright or patent infringement. EU is well on its way to driving good applications out just because it isn't convenient for two people.
You're trying to argue a network stack is the same thing as a browser?