Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

FSFE Supports Microsoft Antitrust Investigation 118

Posted by kdawson from the browser-wars-ain't-over dept.
An anonymous reader sends us to LinuxElectrons.com for an announcement from the Free Software Foundation Europe, in the form of a letter (PDF) sent to the European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. FSFE offers to support a possible EU antitrust investigation of Microsoft, declaring that "Microsoft should be required openly, fully and faithfully to implement free and open industry standards." Opera Software issued a complaint to the Competition Commissioner based on anti-competitive behavior in the web browser market. FSFE president Georg Greve writes in the letter, "Although Opera Software does not produce Free Software, we largely share their assessment and concerns regarding the present situation in the Internet browser market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSFE Supports Microsoft Antitrust Investigation More

FSFE Supports Microsoft Antitrust Investigation

Comments Filter:

  • Confused.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikesd81 ( 518581 ) <.mikesd1. .at. .verizon.net.> on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @02:04AM (#21812656) Homepage
    I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect. Of all things Microsoft does, not including a free alternative, or alternative at all, to a internet browser seems petty. I just recently had to format this computer, and recently built another and I promptly downloaded Fire Fox. I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are...

    That's not to say that MS is innocent, but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers, or office suites.

    • I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect. Of all things Microsoft does, not including a free alternative, or alternative at all, to a internet browser seems petty. I just recently had to format this computer, and recently built another and I promptly downloaded Fire Fox. I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are... That's not to say that MS is innocent, but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers, or office suites.

      That and Internet Explorer isn't even a product they're making money off of anymore. If I wanted IE7 I could go and download it right now for free. In a browser war versus three free products, who the hell cares which one wins? Start and anti-trust suite over their operating system monopoly, not their browser monopoly.

      • Do you know what "anti-trust" means? (Score:5, Informative)

        by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @02:57AM (#21812900) Journal
        *sigh* I don't know why I'm bothering replying to someone who can't spell "lawsuit" and doesn't know the difference between "an" and "and", but here goes...

        Having a monopoly on anything doesn't make you illegal, but it does prevent you from using your monopoly in one market to discourage competition in another market. That's exactly what antitrust laws are designed to prevent.

        Which is exactly what Microsoft did here -- and does. IE7 comes with Vista. IE6 comes with XP. IE has come with every OS they've put out since at least Win98, if not Win95 (too lazy to double-check that). It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.

        And that, in turn, helps perpetuate their Windows monopoly, as no one can legally run IE without owning a copy of Windows, and it certainly was never designed to run outside of Windows. Thus, if someone makes a website which is not standards-compliant, but which is dependent on IE (even without ActiveX), that website will only work on Windows.

        In the old business world, the end of that story would have been: Netscape goes out of business, IE is suddenly no longer free, but there's no alternative. (Think like the story of Office before OpenOffice.org.)

        The only reason we avoided this is, Netscape released their browser as open source, thus making it both truly free (in both senses of the word) and actively developed, and IE is none of these things -- thus, Netscape/Mozilla/Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox can actually compete with IE, whereas the original Netscape couldn't. (I know IE7 is better, but it is a direct response to Firefox.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Last time I checked, IE came bundled with Mac OS and Mac OS X as well and follows standards about as well as IE on Windows. How's the lock-in argument work now?

          People that know an alternative exists know perfectly well they can download and use that alternative. Taking WMP out of Windows XP (for Windows XP N) also doesn't help anyone since people that don't know about alternatives just want something that plays those "music files" their grandchild sent them. Same with IE. They just want to "view the Inter

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DMNT ( 754837 )

            Last time I checked, IE came bundled with Mac OS and Mac OS X as well and follows standards about as well as IE on Windows. How's the lock-in argument work now?

            I strongly suggest you check it again. [microsoft.com]

          • Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @06:46AM (#21813648) Homepage
            It has been a LONG LONG time since you've checked then!

            Fact is, 5.2.3 is the last version of MSIE released for MacOSX... and well, it doesn't work particularly well.

            The lock-in argument works perfectly. Now, if you want to experience the web the way the majority of users do, you have to run Windows and MSIE 6 or 7. If you want to do business with the likes of ADP and several banks and others, you have to run Windows, MSIE and enable ActiveX! (Huge security problem if you didn't already know) Microsoft has enabled and encouraged developers to use their MSIE API as if it were the Win32 API which extends any vulnerability that MSIE has into any program that uses it. (This is where some, but certainly not all of the vendor lock-in comes from.)

            Microsoft's intentional modification of web standards (you think they don't have the expertise in-house to follow standards?) has managed to twist the internet's primary uses into an almost exclusively Microsoft-centric experience. (If you didn't guess, I mean the WWW and Email as the primary uses of the internet.) Microsoft's dominance in the OS and Office arenas have been unfairly exploited to serve their interests in the expansion of their monopoly to the public internet. This serves to create problems for competitors past, present and future in the arena of the public internet. It serves to damage the standards and standards bodies that were created to ensure that competition exists while innovative and technological progress moves forward. It serves to unfairly discourage users from choosing alternative operating systems (by that I mean MacOS and Linux) when doing business or recreational activities. (And is it relevant to suggest that the existence of a Microsoft-monoculture has made possible the exploitation of the entire internet infrastructure as spammers and other assholes create botnets in global proportions... millions and BILLIONS of computers are compromised to serve their interests because the majority of machines are running identical software with identical weaknesses. With every famous worm and every bit of spyware and every bit of email-distributed attack software floating, evolving and plaguing the public internet, there is another clear indication of the mess that Microsoft's monopoly has created.)

            The matter of this antitrust action being limited to the browser addresses only a part of the problem I describe above, but it is a very central part of the problem.

        • Ahh yes I love when people write revisionist history.

          >It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.

          What killed Netscape is arrogance! I was in the business world, and my company (which happened to be a very very big bank) was shunned by Netscape. I am not kidding here. The bank wanted to license Netscape Navigato
          • Standards? I find it ironic that the EFF is going after Microsoft. Netscape in its heyday was notorious for ignoring the standards and creating their own. They would constantly add features and do-dads that would only work in the Netscape browser. I remember when frames and tables were added. It sent browsers like Mosaic into a tailspin.

            Quite so, and in addition Netscape had this enormous plagarism issue. Andressen never mentions Tim Berners-Lee except to bash him. They had a book written 'architects of t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

              Given Opera's recent behavior in the HTML 4/5 situation I don't think that they are in a position to criticze others for not following new standards proposals.

              Bullshit. You apparently think that Opera is the only one involved in HTML5, which is false. Mozilla and Apple are heavily involved as well. The editor works for Google. Get your facts straight.

              But anyone who goes crying to Congress or the EU is a much bigger problem than any industry player in my view.

              Not when this "anyone" is known to put real mon

        • The part you missed in all that is:
          1. MS used to bundle Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL because MSN and IE existed. Each of those allowed connections to the internet (through their own networks) without using Netscape via their own software.
          2. Netscape was trying to sell a browser. Something that for the last 10+ years has been as basic a need on a computer as a text editor. Paying for a browser would be akin to paying for notepad. And using an OS without a browser is as worthless as an OS without a text ed

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taj ( 32429 )
      The antitrust case in the US started out with Sun, Oracle, Netscape and AOL listing a few reasons Microsoft was a monopoly. The one they had solid proof of was the browser. Netscape was (disputably) trying to sell a product. Microsoft bundled IE and destroyed Netscapes marketshare almost overnight. It was a clear case of monopoly abuse despite the effort Microsoft put into their browser.

      Netscape wasn't just going to browse the Internet. It would read news groups, function as a mail client, ... It was a
      • MS bundles notepad and wordpad in the OS, why not a complaint on that? A web browser should be included in an OS because it's part of what we expect to use the OS for in almost all cases.

        There is no "clear cut" as you're trying to say when it comes to an OS. What should be included vs what doesn't have to be is almost all gray area.

        IE with the OS was nothing like Ma Bell, which was a clear cut case. Users chose to use an MS OS where other options were available, they had IE because of that, and yet stil
        • Interestingly, it seems fair to say that the expectation of a web browser included with the OS exists because of Microsoft's decision to put IE into Windows for free back in the day. Before that happened, Netscape even sold its browser in commercial boxes on store shelves. The idea of downloading software for free was simply not an option except for those in the BBS scene and those who had connections to the internet (largely techies, academics and scientists). Most people went to their local mall and bo
          • "Interestingly, it seems fair to say that the expectation of a web browser included with the OS exists because of Microsoft's decision to put IE into Windows for free back in the day."

            The internet was starting to boom before IE was included.
            In the mid 90's when the boom started, you bought a computer with Windows on it and it also came with Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL. People would usually get one of those, and then they're connecting into their networks, using their software and browsers, bypassing Netsc
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by calebt3 ( 1098475 )

      but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers
      Not at the consumer level, no. Although their EULA is worded in such a way that I am sure that they would be legally capable of making that decision if they wanted to. Also, (IIRC) MS punished Dell for trying to install Firefox on their machines.

    • Re:Confused.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Draek ( 916851 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @03:27AM (#21813026)
      it's not that they included a web browser with their operating system, it's that they included a web browser that doesn't properly implement existing standards *and* includes their own propietary protocols with their OS, thereby leveraging their existing monopoly to prevent standards-compliant products from competing fairly in the market.

      if IE rendered standards-compliant webpages at least as good as Firefox does (let alone how Opera and KHTML do) and they didn't include the ActiveX crap with it, my guess is that nobody would be complaining about them bundling it with their OS. Certainly I wouldn't, at least.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      It's not that Microsoft actively _prevents_ you from installing competing software (browser, media player, ...) on their OS. But the fact that they _include_ their own already poisons the market. Windows's dominance of the desktop market means that the vast majority of desktop users _also_ get Internet Explorer. They _can_ install a different browser, but this requires extra effort that many people are (understandably) not willing to make.

      It is the extra effort that people have to make to get a browser othe

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

      I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are...
      Opera is making it in markets with actual competition (mobiles/devices). Despite Firefox being funded by many huge corporations, IE still has more than 80% market share globally. Making it? Are you saying that IE would have had 80% market share if there was actual competition as well?
      • Yes. Only because of oblivious people who don't know about FF or fed FUD about Open Source or who just plain don't care. Go ask an average computer user (by average, a non slash dotter or fairly computer wise person, like perhaps a person in their 40's that just uses a computer to have one for the internet)if they know about Fire Fox or any IE alternative.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
          Except you are talking about a situation without actual competition...

          • Are you saying that IE would have had 80% market share if there was actual competition as well?

            I'm answering your question. Unless Opera or FF or Mozilla or Dillo or who-ever-else advertise and get word about their product out...then IE will always have an advantage in any scenario.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
              You are still describing a situation without competition, and a situation where market share isn't determined by quality.

    • I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect.

      I did not understand how browser inclusion is a problem the first time I heard about it, but since then I've read a lot about security vulnerabilities in IE, and the fact that I cannot *remove* that particular honeypot from my system -- unless I remove that entire operating system -- irks me. In a nutshell, my dealings with Microsoft have not provided the advertised convenience, and have provided unadvertised insecurity, and I d

  • Microsoft anti-trust investigation... it's the type of thing that makes you feel warm inside on a cheery Christmas day. Merry Christmas Slashdot!

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by jimmyhat3939 ( 931746 )
      Be careful what you wish for. How soon after Microsoft gets taken down will Google take their place on the throne of darkness? Just a thought...

  • Quit whining (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by dayzd ( 120810 )
    If they'd put as much effort into writing a better platform as they do into whining about how closed off Microsoft is, then maybe competition wouldn't be an issue. Interoperability is useful for everyone but that doesn't mean that they should be able to sue Microsoft into being compliant with the full HTML spec or CSS or whatever the new technology may be.

  • From a web developer standpoint (Score:3, Informative)

    by psychiccyberfreak ( 1158187 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @02:34AM (#21812792)
    Ok, let me clear it up, Opera is suing MS over their lack of standards compliance, not browser monopoly. Web standards are probably the biggest pain in the ass when it comes to IE. There aren't many good JS debuggers for IE (there are, but I don't find them very bug free). I think getting organizations to support this is a good thing, although in the end it'll probably slip through the cracks...
    • I agree that Internet Explorer's compatibility problems are an issue. But this isn't something the government should be involved in. The solution should come from the free market. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want with their software. If they don't want to support web standards its their prerogative. It's not like Windows prevents anyone from installing another browser.

      Basically, developers should stop supporting IE. Don't bother with the extra trouble of getting a site to support IE properly. In
      • Yes, but the issue here is that people will use the browser they want. They don't know or care about web standards. They will keep using their favorite browser, while using firefox/another browser for those sites that don't support IE. Less intelligent people will just think the site is broken. Unfortunately, most developers would probably be fired if they refused to support IE. I'd like to think that the open market will work things out but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
      Opera isn't suing anyone. They have logged a complaint with EU for anti-competitive practices (monopoly, lack of standards compliance).

  • Huh? (Score:1, Troll)

    by sqrt(2) ( 786011 )
    Didn't we just have an article a few days ago about the next version of IE that's still in development passing the acid 2 test? That's about HTML and CSS standards right? Why would they be suing to get something that's already on the horizon anyway; wont the upcoming IE8 do everything they're asking? There will still be all those un-updated versions of IE out there that will remain none compliant with standards, but you can't mandate that people upgrade, and punishing MS retroactively for those copies that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fweeky ( 41046 )
      Acid 2's hardly an exhaustive test of standards compliance. Passing it's good, but a decent HTML, CSS and JS test suite involve more than a smiley face and one person saying "yup, looks like a smiley face, here's a downsampled gif".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      so you've made the jump from an IE developer saying that IE8 passes the acid2 test to IE8 supporting standards. Isn't that a pretty big jump?
  • "Microsoft should be required openly, fully and faithfully to implement free and open industry standards."

    Meh, I don't see why. It's up to the customers. They should use open standars, so that they have freedom to select the best vendor and can interoperate with everybody else. If customers choose to pay to get locked into proprietary formats (be they Microsoft's or anybody else's), I don't see how that's Microsoft's fault.

    ``Opera Software issued a complaint to the Competition Commissioner based on anti-com
    • Without following standards M$ abuses its monopoly power over the desktop oS, extending it to other fields, stiffling anyone else regardless if this someone else is proprietary or FOSS person.

      FSFE doesn't like M$'s abuse. Nor does Opera.
      It is easy as pie.

      People didn't choose. They were forced to choose. They had little options, when most computers come with M$ and webdesigners make their sites to follow IE's broken (and not open) standards.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by petrus4 ( 213815 )
        People didn't choose. They were forced to choose. They had little options, when most computers come with M$ and webdesigners make their sites to follow IE's broken (and not open) standards.

        No...they weren't actually forced to do anything. What they could have chosen to do is exercise some fscking self-responsibility...tho that's an unpopular option, I know. I've used Firefox ever since the first version of it, and for the most part used Netscape/Mozilla before that. I used IE 4 in particular...but delibe
        • That doesn't change anything. Microsoft is still a monopoly. The law says you get treated differently when you are a monopoly. Leveraging your monopoly into another market is completely forbidden. Maybe that seems unfair for something that is as trivial as a browser (although, as others have said, it wasn't as trivial 10 years ago). Maybe that leverage is made possible by customers' inaction in the face of other choices. It doesn't matter. Monopolies have different rules to follow. Which meant bundling IE w
    • Microsoft has a monopoly, meaning that it can be held to higher standards to insure competition. IANAL, but I think the first complaint is part of the second complaint: If IE implemented standards other web browsers would be able to compete against it more effectively.
  • If you just got your first computer this morning from ol' saint nick (or OLPC), wouldn't you want it equipped with the functionality to access the internet??? (even if it is riddled with security holes that will have your new computer slower than ever before new years)! I doubt very many computers (any OS) would be sold if they did not come out of the box with this option... I'll bring over a CD of FireFox sometime next week, and get you surfing...

  • Can people please start using their brains to realise that if you don't have a web browser installed, that you can still download it? Yes, that's still possible nowadays! You don't even need to have a web browser to do it!

    OEMs could install a tiny program that connects to the Internet and downloads your favourite web browser after asking you which one you would like. They could host a recent version on a fixed spot on their website.

    Can an OEM choose to not install IE and provide Firefox or Opera instead?

  • If Opera manages to get precedence set for forcing Microsoft to adopt CSS standards, imagine the implications with regards to ODF and PDF....

    Ww need more soap, lots of it. Let's make this slope as slippery as we can.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by I'm Don Giovanni ( 598558 )
      Regarding PDF, Microsoft had support for PDF in Office 2k7, but Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EC (fearing that it would threaten Adobe's own monopoly in Office to PDF conversion tools), which forced Microsoft to remove PDF support. How's that for irony? An "open" format (PDF) that Microsoft is forbidden to support in its products.

      As for ODF, Microsoft is sponsoring an open source ODF plugin for Office, so they already do that.

      Oh, and OOXML is well on its way to becoming an ISO standard (see Bri
  • Disclaimer: I am an Open Source user/advocate/evangelist. So save your educating flames for someone who needs them.

    Back in the day, long before we had competing FREE browsers, we had to pay for em. I for one was happy Microsoft bundled What I considered "necessary" Applications with the OS. Why should we have to plop down (back then) $4000 for a PC and then run out and spend another couple hundred to $1000 for apps, just to listen to music or browse the web.

    Sure like everyone else here, I wish it wasn

    • I think you've missed one of the main points - forcing people to use Firefox is just going back to the bad old ways of "Designed for IE".

      "Oh cool, I can do this in Firefox/Mozilla, but it means it doesn't work so well in other browsers - well everybody uses Firefox anyway so why does it matter..."

      I use a mix of Opera, Safari, Firefox, IE and at times Links and Dillo. I target the standards instead of specific browsers, then test to make sure it's usable in all the common browsers.

      I was lucky that I never ha
      • I think you've missed one of the main points - forcing people to use Firefox is just going back to the bad old ways of "Designed for IE". "Oh cool, I can do this in Firefox/Mozilla, but it means it doesn't work so well in other browsers - well everybody uses Firefox anyway so why does it matter..."

        Um, ok. Have you ever seen a site coded for Firefox that doesn't render in Opera/Konquerer/Safari/links/dillo.

        yeah, me either, Unless its completely graphical. I code for standards too, I just check it thoro

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

      I understand Opera being upset. But I don't see where they can complain anymore.

      They can complain that Microsoft prevents competition, which they do.

      They should focus their efforts on bundling their browser with hardware, like the Wii, and cell phones. Does doing so make their position hypocritical?

      No, because neither Nintendo nor Opera are monopolists.

      How many people still code for IE?

      Lots.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close