MS is a convicted monopolist, still enjoying monopoly profits. The US Sherman anti trust legislation should hold monopolists to a higher standard of conduct. Because the legal system in the US has not worked as well as it should there is a history of illegal activity that MS has got away with (eg against both Novell & Sun). This has resulted in cowed competition. Only after this competition has been beaten has MS then settled lawsuits that it has been able to afford to do because of monopoly profits.

Against this backdrop the European Commission has stood up to MS to at least some effect.

I think the issue is that when challenged, MS replied that to remove the browser was impossible, then just difficult and crippling. The EU didn't accept that response, forcing MS into this position. Other OS vendors didn't embed the browser so deeply that a user couldn't use another, and didn't make removal of the default browser so difficult.

Had MS been a bit more cooperative about their position originally, they wouldn't be in the fix they are now.

That's probably part of the reason, Jake. The reason the EU probably didn't accept Microsoft's "removing IE would cripple Windows" defense was because some hacker showed that it was possible to remove IE and Windows (mostly) worked. Also, if you remember back far enough, IE was originally distributed in a Plus Pack for Windows 95. There were very few good reasons to tie IE into everything (and you can still download new versions of IE).

I think what MS should have done was separate the application part of IE (the desktop icon, menus, etc.) but keep the IE engine (the part that renders HTML and probably is used by the system). Users who wanted IE could install it, and vendors could write their own browsers using the IE infrastructure.

The only problem is how do you download a browser without a browser in the first place? There are probably four main ways (I'm leaving out people-intensive methods like getting an installation disc mailed to you):

1. In the old days, you'd use FTP, but the pervasiveness of the Web has diminished FTP's role on the Internet. I doubt that a lot of consumers would want to do that for one program.

2. You could use something like BitTorrent, but Windows doesn't include a torrent client as far as I know. And, again, how many users would want to use that to get one program?

3. You could have an install option that installed the browser, but that still gives Micorsoft a "privileged" install unless you allow choosing other browsers during installation (which sounds like what they may do).

4. You could use Windows Update to add a browser after installation, but that still raises the same issues as the install option.

Given those, I think that #3 is probably the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.

Steve

good question. you'd think if this applies to Microsoft it should apply to other OS's as well. you can't just make an example out of the biggest company and not follow through on the lesser but still respectably-sized computer makers.

I already explained why it won't apply to other OS vendors. It's not about "making an example" out of Microsoft; it's about correcting Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly position. As the other OS vendors don't have a monopoly, no anti-trust remedies are necessary.

Steve

the stupid thing about this is that so much of what is done in many european countries would be considered monopolies in north america (i live in germany). if microsoft were a european company you'd hear nothing about all this.

@ctitanic:

Now my question is, will all OS ask the same? When you turn on a Mac in the EU will it ask for what browser do you want to use? What about Ubuntu? or the new Google OS?

Probably not. Apple, Google and Linux vendors weren't accused of abusing a monopoly position by bundling their browsers with their OS. Companies judged to be a monopoly have to play by a stricter set of rules than other companies do.

Steve

Also, for the Apple line, Safari coexists quite well with other browsers, so you can easily ignore Safari if you prefer Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, etc, on the Mac. So nobody is forced into anything on OSX.

Other browsers coexist quite well in Windows, too. I have Firefox and Chrome installed on my Vista system, so nobody is "forced" to use IE in most cases (unless a site only works in IE, of course).

However, that's not what this is about. The point of these actions is that Microsoft allegedly abused their monopoly position to make their browser dominant by bundling it into Windows. Once you have a browser pre-installed, what incentive is there for most people to go to the effort to download and install another one?

Steve

I think the E.U.'s laws only require O.S.'s sold for money to be forced into having this as an option where as open source software like free Linux distros would not.

That may be true, Irish, but I doubt it. As I've said, I think the issue is one of abusing a monopoly position by bundling.

If what you said were true, Apple would also be required to allow browser choice like that because OS X is sold for money.

And what about an OS included on a PC? Are those OSs "sold for money" or not? If just the hardware is sold, OEMs could use a version of Windows without the choice. If the OS is consider being sold because it's part of the hardware purchase, Linux would be affected, too, because many Netbooks bundle a version of Linux.

In fact, aren't there Linux distros that are sold (maybe Red Hat)?

Steve

Some distros are indeed sold, especially on the govermental or enterprise market. In addition, many Linux shops pay the creators of Distros such as Red Hat, Fedora and Suse for Tech Support. There is money being made, even in so called Open Source.

However, many Linux Distro allow you to select between a couple browsers on install, usually Firefox and other more arcane software...just not IE.

People can still use any browser they want even on Windows. I go through periods of using Firefox or Opera...however I always keep IE installed as well with no problem. Too many Windows features and websites just work better with IE.