scottie said: lvader said: Any OS without a working Internet Browser is stupid. These anti trust cases are just Euro fat cats extorting money from US companies. Tee hee. You haven't actually read any details about the browser ballot screen, why are you posting in this thread? In the EU, IE is still installed by default on all computers. The first time you run it, it asks you what program you want to use. If you choose something other than IE, that program is installed and made the default browser and the IE shortcut on the taskbar is removed (IE is not even uninstalled btw, so it's still a major security hazard). So now that you now that at all times there is a working browser on all windows computers I want you to apologise to the European Union on this thread

actually, based on what the European Union decided the solution was

1) force Microsoft to advertise for the competitor (what they are doing now) which is despicable of the EU to force in a "free" market.

2) force Microsoft to remove IE (and therefore all) browsers from Windows which is stupid and doesn't benefit other browsers at all or consumers.

There really was 0 reason for them to do this. I agree that the European Union likes to extort money from companies. However, I won't say just US companies as we only really hear about the tech company cases on this website.

Anyone with taste already has firefox.

Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.   It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people.

It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated.

patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.   It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people. It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word choice. People could still download Netscape if they wanted too... infact, Netscape was actually the browser I used for that matter. People still had the choice. Microsoft just gave them a good reason NOT to make that choice. An incentive in "we've already done the work for you". Had Netscape been good enough, and given people good enough reason to use it... people would.

I think google is more dangerous than microsoft , IMO... I have never heard of MS Erasing search results. Google has, that's a known fact.

Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.   It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people. It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word choice. People could still download Netscape if they wanted too... infact, Netscape was actually the browser I used for that matter. People still had the choice. Microsoft just gave them a good reason NOT to make that choice. An incentive in "we've already done the work for you". Had Netscape been good enough, and given people good enough reason to use it... people would.

Yes, I understand the word choice. What you do not understand is that both browsers provided the consumer with the same experience. Therefore once Internet Explorer was provided with Windows there was no need for the comsumer to seek out another product that offered the same experience. Let's not forget that the Internet was young at the time and mainstream consumers were not Internet savy and used what ever was provided to them, Windows Media player, Internet Explorer, and other bundled software like Microsoft Works.

Since we can not agree lets to agree to disagree.

patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.   It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people. It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word choice. People could still download Netscape if they wanted too... infact, Netscape was actually the browser I used for that matter. People still had the choice. Microsoft just gave them a good reason NOT to make that choice. An incentive in "we've already done the work for you". Had Netscape been good enough, and given people good enough reason to use it... people would. Yes, I understand the word choice. What you do not understand is that both browsers provided the consumer with the same experience. Therefore once Internet Explorer was provided with Windows there was no need for the comsumer to seek out another product that offered the same experience. Let's not forget that the Internet was young at the time and mainstream consumers were not Internet savy and used what ever was provided to them, Windows Media player, Internet Explorer, and other bundled software like Microsoft Works. Since we can not agree lets to agree to disagree.

Sure... if what we're going to disagree with is your understanding the definition of the word choice. If i offer you a sandwhich myself or the ability to make your own sandwhich, i'm not "robbing" you of the ability to make your own sanwhich. I'm offering you a more convient option. It's called offering more value.

Kasz - that's all well and good, but hardly relevant under EU or American law*. Using the fact that you have a monopoly in one area to bring about a monopoly in another area is legally defined as anti-competitive behaviour. Or are you trying to argue that it is illegal but moral?

* Good luck taking a large company to court in the US of A though

scottie said: Kasz - that's all well and good, but hardly relevant under EU or American law*. Using the fact that you have a monopoly in one area to bring about a monopoly in another area is legally defined as anti-competitive behaviour. Or are you trying to argue that it is illegal but moral? * Good luck taking a large company to court in the US of A though

I actually don't think it was illegal under europeon law either, but just done for political reasons agaisnt microsoft.

A internet browser in a computer is no different than a radio in a car.

Also to make actions illegal based soley on the size of their company and buisness and not based on the merits of the actions themselves is asinine.

Kasz216 said: scottie said: Kasz - that's all well and good, but hardly relevant under EU or American law*. Using the fact that you have a monopoly in one area to bring about a monopoly in another area is legally defined as anti-competitive behaviour. Or are you trying to argue that it is illegal but moral? * Good luck taking a large company to court in the US of A though (a)I actually don't think it was illegal under europeon law either, but just done for political reasons agaisnt microsoft. (b)A internet browser in a computer is no different than a radio in a car. Also to make actions illegal based soley on the size of their company and buisness and not based on the merits of the actions themselves is asinine.

(a) "[prohibited are]...all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market..." - Article 81 EC (European Union law)

 

Bundling IE with windows prevented Netscape from competing with IE and restricted the competition provided by FF,Opera,Chrome etc. So it clearly is against EU law.

 

(b) Agreed. So if any particular car company had a monopoly in the European union, it is quite possible that they would be forbidden from manufacturing their own cd players (which few car companies do anyway) and offering them as the only preinstalled option in all their cars. I fail to see the relevance of the comparison though

 

Ahh, perhaps they are asinine, if I were to argue that I would claim that we must judge people not on their actions, but on the effects of their actions. Apple bundling Imacs with Safari doesn't cause an internet browser monopoly, MS bundling IE with windows does, so even though their action is the same, the effect is different, but as I said before, that is really an 'illegal but moral' argument.