EC accuses Microsoft of illegally tying IE to Windows
46 CommentsPublished January 19th, 2009 12:02 PM EST By Tamil
Following its investigation of Opera Software ASA’s antitrust complaint filed in December, 2007, the European Commission (EC) confirmed that it has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft on 15th January 2009. The SO outlines the Commission’s preliminary view that Microsoft’s tying of its web browser Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system Windows infringes the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position.
Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply the SO and it can request a hearing before the EU makes a final determination. If the preliminary views expressed in the SO are confirmed, the Commission may impose a fine on Microsoft, require Microsoft to cease the abuse and impose a remedy that would restore genuine consumer choice and enable competition on the merits.
Opera’s CEO, Jon von Tetzchner said, “On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking the next step towards restoring competition in a market that Microsoft has strangled for more than a decade. The Commission’s Statement of Objections demonstrates that the Commission is serious about getting Microsoft to start competing on the merits in the browser market and letting consumers have a real choice of internet browsers.”
Microsoft said in a statement that it’s studying the SO of EC.
TechFlash published an interview with Opera CEO, Jon von Tetzchner regarding antitrust battle against Internet Explorer.
Read the Opera press release.
If you enjoyed this post, then make sure you subscribe to my RSS Feed.
using
I think Opera is pushing too hard on this, what is the alternative? Windows can’t ship with every browser. OEM’s can put whatever they want on there, and retail users can just download whatever browser they want (and you can’t expect them to do this over FTP)
using
I have yet to have a look at Vista. Does it ship with any other media players than Windows Media Player?
asf. A software repository, similar to most Linux distributions, would be a good idea. Thus, keeping up to date versions of popular software for all major PC functions, in an accessible and trustworthy place.
using
Why would it ship with other media players? You can get it without any media player in the N version, but nobody does that.
Your average user will not know what to pick if you show them a list of several browsers/media players
using
“Why would it ship with other media players? You can get it without any media player in the N version, but nobody does that.”
In other words a paper exercise.
“Your average user will not know what to pick if you show them a list of several browsers/media players”
When I gained the skills of word processing, I learnt to word process (on the very excellent Locoscript), and was empowered to use any word processor. Alas, now the people are taught how to Word, and not how to word process, and so are initiated into the world of word processing with blinkers on.
using
why should windows come with ftp? I mean, there are several ftp-suites that could also sue ms… and what about paint, solitare, minesweeper, wordpad, the explorer, the cleaning tool, defrag and so on.
I think an os should serve and come with a minimum of applications
–> and who creates trhe list which browser/application(media) can be selected? there are so many! why not including lynx? or maybe k-melone. by marketshare? this is not alwa the best! and for media players you can’t create a good view of the “market share”. by the way: what about spezialisations like handling ipod/zune/whatevers…
could irfan view sue ms for the picture preview? (it is the same, without so many options!)
don’t think that is all so good…
using
The biggest problem with Internet Explorer is that it’s installed by default and no way to fully uninstall it. If you would remove it, windows update wouldn’t work and a lot of other Microsoft products would stop working and that is a the biggest problem.
People should be able to uninstall Internet Explorer and still get the windows updates, by using opera, firefox, etc… and all program’s should still work.
using
Sadly this will, at the most, restult in MS churning out another same-price version of Windows lacking IE. Which no one will buy. 1-0 to MS.
using
@asf
Opera isn’t pushing anything. Opera simply reported to the EC that Microsoft was breaking the law. The EC took it from there. The EC is the one pushing this.
What Opera did was the equivalent of reporting a crime.
No IE in Windows by default. OEMs install the browser they choose to install.
A tiny minority of advanced users which will have no problems what so ever to get their hands on a browser.
using
@David Naylor, you are assuming that the EU will let MS get away with the same BS they pulled with WMP. I doubt it. I foresee that this time they will do it right and only allow MS to sell one version of Windows, without IE.
@mabdul
This is not a lawsuit, i-d-i-o-t. Opera merely informed the authorities that MS was breaking the law.
As for your completely inane examples:
FTP: Does Microsoft’s FTP client break the standards and prevent other FTP clients from working?
Ditto with Paint and Wordpad.
If you can demonstrate that Microsoft has broken the law with these apps, go ahead and tell the US and EU antitrust authorities.
Solitaire, Minesweeper, defrag and various system tools are internal to Windows. A browser connects to a worldwide network of computers and can cause problems if a monopolist does lock-in like Microsoft did. Your comparison is useless and displays your complete lack of knowledge.
Why should I have to pay for Windows Media Player and IE if I don’t use them? They are part of the cost of Windows, you know.
The OEM preinstalls the software they want to have on there.
That’s because you are ignorant and refuse to educate yourself.
using
Re: ‘N’ versions of windows.
Why should Microsoft charge less for leaving out free programs/applications?
….
Also:
I NEED my OS to ship with a browser.
Forcing Microsoft to include other browsers in the package, may just be an illegal act.
Microsoft makes IE, so IE it is.
The extra minute to download and install the browser of your choice will never be a bother to me.
Of course i willbe rabidly attacked for having an opinion, been the case since sunday
…sigh….
using
@sirnh1:
How many times do people have to go over this? the IE renderer is used by lots of 3rd party apps, you can’t remove it. So you are left with just iexplore.exe, and you could remove the shortcuts to that since windows2000 (SP2?)
using
What next?
Electronic Arts against Microsoft’s Winmine?
Adobe and Corel against Paint?
using
PS. Chrome on XP is my browser
using
@asf:
That would be my choice, If I want to remove ‘Internet Explorer’ (IE), causing some program not to work, I should be able to do it. (Just like you can do with silverlight and the .net framework)
Bye the way, you can remove safari in osx , you can unistall the default browser in Linux and everything still works. Why can’t we unistall IE and still still update windows, etc….?
If a program doesn’t work without IE, then that’s because they where to lazy to include an engine of their own. They could take the one firefox or could pay opera for their engine, or microsoft could release a dll or 2 that people could attach to their project and they could distribute those dll with their project.
Anyway a program that uses IE, can’t work under linux since linux doesn’t have any IE version available (that microsoft brings out), so it’s better for everyone if IE is fully removed by default!
using
@sirnh1:
Its used by the helpsystem and stuff like that aswell, so are you saying MS needs to have two separate html engines? lets go back to the old days and not even ship with TCP out of the box
using
@yopie
> FTP: Does Microsoft’s FTP client break the standards and prevent other FTP clients from working?
no! not right. then we should sue google for this buggy imap version in gmail. or who is the “non-plus-ultra” goverment who is allowed to explain what is a standard? the w3c? don’t missunderstand me please, but everybody can write standards. –> atom. it is the free standard of rss. hina-di & lirs are also web feed (popular in japan)
are we able to sue for every BUG, which isn’t standard conform, in a application now?
I mean, the problem is: everybody can create standard. who is allowed to say that these should be implemented? the iso has verified VML as a standard –> the w3c SVG. who is right now? or should everybody integrate both standards?
and only because of not being standard-conform means that you make a “******/buggy application”. you only fail. that haven’t anything to do with illegal or legal.
(can i sue mozilla then for not serving gopher in ff with the i-item –> they are the only graphical browser already that supports gopher!)
using
K3M15A:
IE isn’t free. The price is included with Windows.
OEMs will install it for you.
Not necessarily.
using
asf: It is Microsoft’s own fault if they ignored previous antitrust cases and continued to tie IE tightly into Windows.
.
tolep:
Can it be shown that Microsoft has broken the law in these cases? I doubt it, seeing as Mine Sweeper doesn’t produce any output for other applications to interact with, and Paint uses standard image formats which any image program can view.
using
mabdul:
Your ignorance is astounding. Why do you constantly keep ignoring what people are saying, and repeat the same old fallacies? I’ll try again:
Google does not have a monopoly (both Hotmail and Yahoo Mail have more users than Gmail).
Furthermore, no one sued anyone. Opera merely reported Microsoft’s illegal activities to the EU.
There are some recognized standards bodies, such as W3C and ECMA. There is no reason why they cannot continue to work as recognized standards bodies.
You are dishonestly pretending that it is not actually pretty clear what web standards are and who makes them.
No one has been sued. And bugs are not illegal. Microsoft’s violations of the law move well beyond mere bugs.
There is a consensus today. There is no reason why this consensus based model cannot continue to function.
This paragraph does not compute. Try again in English? It seems that you are saying that Microsoft is being punished for bugs. This is not the case. This case is not built upon mere bugs, but on actual violations of the law.
AGAIN: No one sued anyone! Get it? And no, you can’t sue Mozilla. They didn’t break the law. MS broke the law.
using
If no IE in Widnows HOW I DOWNLOAD MY OPERA BROWSER?
using
>If no IE in Widnows HOW I DOWNLOAD MY OPERA BROWSER?
^_^’
Via FTP client or any download manager… well there are alot of ways
using
@fan.inet
Maybe M$ could
stealerr… borrow the ‘add and remove’ section from *nux. (screenshot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synaptic_Package_Manager.png)using
The thing is, who’s to say that IE isn’t free? Isn’t it a matter of semantics? I doubt they’d lower the price if they were forced to remove IE from the OS. Who really uses all the features of Windows anyway? You might as well sue Microsoft for 80% of Windows components.
using
It does not make any sense for Microsoft to be forced to include other third party browsers with Windows. This would, in fact, be ludicrous, given that the selection process would artificially alter the market in and of itself, and it just makes no sense to force a company to include another company’s product in its own. That said, it also does not make sense to strip IE out entirely. This would make it much more difficult to acquire a web browser (given that one is obviously required to get another), and would lead massive problems with copies of Windows sold at retail (which would increase massively from upgrades around the time a new version of Windows rolls around) even if it doesn’t cause problems for those who buy their computers from manufacturers (also, why are manufacturers any better authorities to force a browser choice than Microsoft?). Also, what about the common practice of bundling browsers into every other modern OS in existence? Why shouldn’t Microsoft be allowed to do the same? This does bring up another issue, however. IE should be completely and easily removable from the system. No critical Windows component should be dependent on it (btw, Windows Update hasn’t been since Vista). Its fine if some software, including software sold by Microsoft chooses to depend on it, but nothing that is built in to the OS should. And system makers should have the option to replace it (honestly, most probably will do so with Firefox). I have no idea why a certain group’s standard (even if they are the excepted standards group in the field) should be prefered. I mean, they are not a governmental group, so what they say should not carry the weight of law. That said, this is simply my own idealist view on how things should work. I live in the US and don’t know what EU laws say, and Microsoft could very well be breaking them. I do believe, however, that if the EU’s laws do not reflect these views, they should probably be changed.
using
Let me add that I don’t presume to know what is good for European citizens better than the EU’s government does, I am simply voicing both my opinion on what should happen and my ignorance of actual EU law. Also, what is up with every single person here still running winxp (with the exception of that one bsd guy and one linux guy)? The OS is over 7 years old, people.
using
It isn’t difficult in for example ‘Ubuntu’. Ubuntu’s add and remove section has a long list of many (free) programmes that it can download and install with just a click off a button. No web browser needed. You can even use to uninstall the default browser… The only thing it does download a file and install (no user interaction required). *nix can even update without a browser…
First M$ has monopoly and so has to play with different rules. That just how it is in the EU and also in US and anywhere else. Also, in on a mac and on *nix you can just uninstall the default browser and everything still works.
The only thing that happend is that opera told the EU that M$ is abusing is power to include IE in Windows, just like someone else did with ‘Windows Mediaplayer’. And now, the EU agreed with that. No one asked for opera (or firefox) to be installed by default…
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m only using XP for gaming. There is nothing Vista can do that I can’t do with XP. So why Upgrade? DirectX 10 doesn’t really count, since there aren’t any (good) games that don’t work with DirectX9…
And well, if my computer dies and I need a new one, I’ll get a linux and use WINE (see http://www.winehq.org/about/)
using
That’s all ********!!!
Including a browser with a OS is essential nowadays. ¿How would an average user download another browser? and… what happens if the main browser gets broken or uninsulated by mistake? The user could get ‘blocked’, its also essential that it could not be removed!!! In the name of god, we are talking about just a few Mb
And on the other hand, they have the right to include whatever they want in their product, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it (yes, windows costs money)
What do apple do with safari?
using
fan.inet:
At least try to use your brain (and read the discussion before commenting). OEMs will preinstall browsers for everyone who buys a new PC (most people).
.
D:
No one SUED Microsoft. Microsoft was reported for breaking the law. They did not necessarily break the law for 80% of the components in Windows. Get a clue already.
using
clhodapp:
Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. If Microsoft had not broken the law, they would have been able to continue bundling IE.
It does if SAID COMPANY BROKE THE LAW.
False. At least read before commmenting. OEMs will preinstall a browser when you buy a new PC. Most people get Windows preinstalled anyway. For retail versions of Windows, the store can easily supply you with a browser, or you ISP can send you one. Piece of cake.
Because they are not monopolies, and because they didn’t make any of the browsers themselves.
BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW! Pay attention already. Breaking the law has consequences.
The US laws say the same thing. Which is Why Microsoft was already convicted for the same things in the US. Geez.
Vista sucks?
using
personally i don’t care if Windows comes with IE, but it aggravates me that i cannot uninstall it because of the way it’s integrated with the OS, whatever the system i use i want the option to install / uninstall whatever i want, period
using
@clhodapp I totally agree with you!
@Sniff explain me: if a retrailler install a browser for me (and normally I have the option to redo this step), nothing change for me.
]
I buy a pc (with win) and I got a browser and are able to surf.
why should I be excluded of this “privileg” if i buy a pc without an os, and then installing win from a dvd that is bought by me? –> that is nothing other! [or a friend of mine does this]. installing an os is easier nowadays for everage joe than to get a browser without having one! [or we get back in time to buy a magazin were is netscape in
using
First, I want to again make clear that both my previous posts and this one are not about what the law actually says, but what I think it should be. If MS violated the law in the EU (and it seems pretty clear that they did), then that law should be enforced against them, since it was in place at the time of their actions, and they can be reasonably expected to act accordingly.
sirnh1:
I find the package manager/repository system to be great, but I cannot support forcing a company to first retool their system of installing software and then to maintain a repository of other company’s software.
I cannot support a policy telling a company that because they have a large market share they must release a technically inferior product. If Microsoft has to unbundle, so should everyone (especially Apple which makes its own browser that it bundles into its own OS and sells on its own hardware). That said I do think that it is a problem for IE to be impossible to remove. A few years ago, I spent an entire day trying to remove IE from a WinXP system (mostly for my own amusement) and determined that short of creating an altered install disc that doesn’t include it (which would obviously break the preinstalled programs dependent on it- the most severe problem with IE bundling), it is absolutely not possible.
This is true. As of yet, no such request has been made by the EU, but a lot of third party sources seem to think that they will. I was simply saying that among the possible solutions to the issue, I don’t think that this is the best one. If this isn’t what the EU requests, then all the better.
Fair enough. I personally prefer both Windows Vista (and therefore 7) and several Linux distros over XP, which is why I asked (though I pretty much know the answer. Everyone loves jumping on the Vista hate-train, even though the product has been solidly better than XP for over a year [though you seem to have reasons for choosing XP other than hating Vista, and a reasonable plan for a future lacking such a dated OS.]).
using
I have found GoJoeGo here, too easy
using
Sniff:
First, why can’t we be civil? You make several attacks me based on some perceived lack of diligence that I do not believe exists (and which I will address presently), as well as largely dismissing my arguments without true rebuttal (also to be addressed).
Second, you seem to miss the entire point of my post, which is not intended to claim that Microsoft did not break the law or to negate their responsibility for any law breakage (I certainly don’t have the power to do this), but instead to take an idealist stance on what should happen in the lawless world of ideals.
That said, you claim that:
This certainly does not address my comment. I was simply arguing that Microsoft should not have to aid other browser manufacturers, and had not even addressed the bundling of IE itself at the point in my post that you quoted. That said I believe that your statement is an oxymoron, given that Microsoft’s bundling of IE is the very action by which it would have broken any laws.
This statement is far to general to interpret without making some major assumptions of meaing (it would be ridiculous to apply to all situations: should a company that breaks any law be forced to peddle another company’s wares?). Assuming that you mean that a company that is found guilty of monopolistic practices must do work to promote the products of its competitors (feel free to correct me if this is not what you meant), I beg to differ, as that is their responsibility. All a company should have to do is not actively sabotage competition. It is the competitor’s job to actually compete. Also, I note for later that you here seem to support the forced bundling of browsers other than Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system. I will come back to this later.
First, I find your admonishment to be highly ironic, given that it is in fact you who did not read completely. Later in the same sentence, I address the fact that this would not apply to systems purchased from OEMs. Also, I do think that the system you described wherein a browser could be acquired from the same seller as the operating system could be workable, but it seems like such a distribution system would place additional strain on browser makers and would a good number of people could fall through the cracks. At the very least, setting up such a system surely won’t be a piece of cake.
A sound point.
Pay attention to what? Please don’t say their lawbreaking, as I can read your post. You completely miss the point of my previous post, which is, again, not to speak of what is or is not illegal, but to make statements as to what is and is not reasonable. What the actual law says is not the issue at hand. Since I am attempting to reply to all parts of your comment, I will say that according to the EU’s complaint it is the very act of bundling Internet Explorer that is illegal. That would mean the same action should be illegal for all operating systems. The only possible distinction would be one of market share, and as I have said before, having a high market share should not require a company to release a technically inferior product (i.e. an operating system lacking a web browser, which is now considered to be a standard feature). I would also point out that requiring Microsoft to unbundle IE and also to bundle other browsers (which seems to be the case you are making) would do just as much to undermine Internet Explorer’s chances to compete as the current system does Opera’s or Firefox’s (or Chrome’s etc.).
Microsoft was indeed brought up on charges in the US, but that was for an even greater offence than the one here described. They were accused up literally manipulating their APIs to prevent other browsers from working properly. This case has already been settled. That isn’t the point, though. I was discussing what should be done in an ideal world, not what the law says should be done. My statement about EU law was merely intended to display that the acutal wording of it is not a factor in my post. I have said, and I will say again, if Microsoft broke the law, they ought to be held accountable.Vista sucks?Vista’s problems and even most of “its problems” (by this I mean problems created by software and hardware makers that refused to issue compatible updates) have long been fixed. Also, Windows 7 beta is out, and unlike with Vista, it is not popular to hate Windows 7, so the “in” crowd can safely use it. But given that it is essentially the same product and XP is a really old OS, if you have a legitimate and independently-conceived dislike of Vista, by now you would be wise to move to a Linux distro which is still actively evolving. You could easily run an WINE and XP in a VM, and there are a lot of Linux distros with usability far better that of WinXP (my personal choice is Mint).
using
The Eu has a habit of using legislation against american companies.
using
Maybe i’m naive but, windows was invented by microsoft. This is their proprietory software. They reserve the right to do what ever with it. Just like you have other software’s that come complete with browsers. I use opera but it consumes too much ram it had to go. Frankly there is no browser if internet explorer gets a kick. After this opera moves to roll and cry on what? Nokia’s symbian s60’s oss browser be removed too cause it infringes competition. Get a life.
using
ehm, my post was moderated and now released. so it is between the discoussion (two days after written). that is really strange and now i can’t follow the discussion!
@operawatch (daniel/tamil/who ever) why moderating this discussion?
using
@clhodapp
I have already answered most of the stuff, such as this:
And I said that Microsoft broke the law and ruined it for other browser manufacturers.
So the penalty must be the same as the crime? No. If you steal, you don’t get stuff stolen from you. You are thrown in jail.
Already answered. See the two comments above.
This is asuming that Microsoft will have to bundle other browsers, which is besides the point. The best solution is to just remove IE and leave the bundling up to the OEMs anyway.
Why?
Again, please pay attention. Bundling is not illegal in itself. Using bundling to use one’s monopoly to prevent competition is.
Again, please pay attention. Neither bundling nor high market share alone are illegal.
Actually, I want Windows to come without a browser, period. OEMs should take care of that.
That was just a part of it.
using
@Sayah, read the comments before posting. Microsoft broke the law, so they no onger have the right to do whatever they want with it. And Nokia/S60 doesn’t have a monopoly and didn’t break the law. It doesn’t “infringe competition”. And guess what, in the mobile market where there is actual competition, Opera is the dominant browser!
.
@Rob
That’s funny, because Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive practices in the US as well. And Google and Microsoft have both logged antitrust complaints against each other in the US and Europe. Xenophobia rocks, dude!
using
Jesus christ, give ms a break, the only thing they are guilty of is wanting to deliver a quality product. EC should stop bitching and deliver a set of guidelines for vendors instead of trying to make a quick buck from ms with their fines! Or opera can sell their own OS instead of ms having to commit their own costs to downgrade their own products. Remember: its not illegal in the US, it only is in the EU… MS is bending over backwards to appease these crooks… They don’t have any stake in the browser, they’re only interested in the money from fines!!
using
Derek :
False. Internal Microsoft memos showed that their strategy was to lock in the browser market to prevent browsers from becoming a threat to Windows’s dominance. This is a fact.
And if all they wanted was to deliver quality, they would not have let IE6 rot for several years without doing anything what so ever.
But they did. It’s called “the law”. Look it up. Microsoft knew they were breaking the law because they have been busted for it in several countries, including the US!
Opera isn’t into OSes, and Microsoft has to “downgrade” (upgrade) Windows because they broke the law. Break the law, take the consequences.
False. Anti-competitive practices ARE illegal in the US as well. The US, like probably all other countries on earth, does have antitrust laws. In fact, Microsoft was tried in the US a few years ago.
So they crooks are not the ones who willfully broke the law (MS), but rather the ones trying to enforce the law?
The police are crooks, and robbers are just innocent people who shouldn’t have their freedom to walk the streets taken away from them?
Logic, Derek. Logic. Important stuff. That and knowledge.
using
Opera will remove e-mail, rss, bittorrent clients from Opera browser?
Is it legal to include so many functions to one program?
(if Opera can, why Microsoft NOT?)
using
@hullo
Microsoft is guilty of anti-competitive practices, and the ECC has been very adamant in punishing Microsoft in return, being perhaps unreasonably harsh.
I don’t think that untying IE from Windows will create any significant change because:
1. OEMs will include IE anyways or Microsoft will pay them to include it (ala anti-virus software trials).
2. A new version of IE will still have a mode backwards compatable with IE 6 & 7’s kinks, and web developers will continue to write with older versions of IE in mind.
So a lose for Microsoft, but not much gain for anyone else.
using
@fan.inet
Read the discussion before posting irrelevant nonsense. It is not illegal to bundle browsers or have multiple features. It IS illegal to abuse one’s dominan position in one market to prevent competition in another.
Microsoft broke the law, and THAT is why Opera can, and Microsoft can’t do whatever they want.
using
@Derek
Microsoft is guilty of abusing its market position to prevent competition in a different market. And Microsoft were found guilty of this in the US as well.
using
@hullo
i find it funny that you complain about Microsoft & IE6 breaking the law while using it…
Its also funny how backwards you see this as “breaking the law”, while these laws were created AFTER IE, Windows XP, & Vista was created. Why hasn’t EU stepped BEFORE Vista was created?
When IE was created, it WASN’T illegal, infact it was considered fair game to get a competitive advantage against other software vendors. That’s how CAPITALISM works. What MS was being sued for in the US was infact impeding other vendors from creating their own products, which is an entirely different ball game, and has nothing to do what the EU has bitched and complained about.
Now that EU has considered MS a ‘platform’ to other software, they can’t create their own products now? So now if Joe Blow from some country in Europe decides one day to create their own crapper version of Windows Explorer, they’re allowed to file a complaint to EU, and MS has to uncouple that as well?
Give me a break, its called COMMON SENSE, not the law. The law isn’t always COMMON SENSE.