Microsoft due for another round of EU antitrust probes

Microsoft, the ever-present target of scorn from the little guy, has once again been hit with antitrust charges in the EU, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal today. This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time). Additionally -- just as we reported in December -- Norwegian web browser outfit Opera is stepping up to the plate, alleging that Redmond's inclusion of Internet Explorer with its ubiquitous operating system leaves little room for rival companies to enter the game. Considering how Microsoft's last antitrust case went in the EU, this may bode poorly for the giant, though a ruling in favor of reforms could benefit the end user. Stay tuned to this space for more information as we get it.

[mattbrown @ Jan 14th 2008 12:36PM]

Opera's case is bogus. I mean, really, how would the 0.03% of web users who use Opera get to Opera's website if IE wasn't included with Windows? Screw the EU.

[iPriest @ Jan 14th 2008 12:42PM]

The EU rules the world. Better get used to it!

[Paul @ Jan 14th 2008 1:02PM]

I was just thinking that... The first thing I do when I install Windows is use IE to download firefox, after that IE only gets used for windows updates...

If I dont have IE on the computer I will need to keep a copy of firefox on a flash drive. This seems kinda lame, all operating systems include a default internet browser, why go only after MS? seems that Apple and every distro of linux should be named as well...

[Dextro @ Jan 14th 2008 1:08PM]

Well, if IE and Opera were included, users would have a choice.
You are exactly saying that their case is bogus because of the things they are being sued over.

Yes screw the EU! Why for gods sake? It's not the EU who is suing. Opera filed some complaints.

[Dextro @ Jan 14th 2008 1:08PM]

@Paul;
Opera is included in OSX :-)

[Dextro @ Jan 14th 2008 1:14PM]

I wonder why i always keep thinking that, probably because the first thing i install on a mac is an Adoce CSx suite. They include Opera, OSX doesn't. My bad!

[Dextro @ Jan 14th 2008 1:14PM]

I wonder why i always keep thinking that, probably because the first thing i install on a mac is an Adoce CSx suite. They include Opera, OSX doesn't. My bad!

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 2:11PM]

"This seems kinda lame, all operating systems include a default internet browser, why go only after MS? seems that Apple and every distro of linux should be named as well..."

Linux distros don't need a browser installed and it could be one of many selected by the distributor (OEM). You can't say the same for Windows. You can use package installer utilities (of which I can name at least 2) to download and install a browser without needing a browser installed.

Your Linux attack has no grounds. There's plenty of competition.

What MS needs is a selection process on installation where you can pick a browser, media player, etc. or open up the restrictive OEM license and allow OEMs to install Firefox, Safari, or whatever they want.

[KC @ Jan 14th 2008 2:54PM]

Going the other way, I wonder why Opera is only included on the Wii??? I mean, they should include some other browser there, as we all should be give our right to choose?

[E71 @ Jan 14th 2008 7:57PM]

The majority of the corporations the EU goes after are American. I reckon we should fight back or do the same to any European countries trying to expand into or do business with us.

[maveric101 @ Jan 14th 2008 11:10PM]

why does everyone attack Microsoft so much? just because they're successful?

"Linux distros don't need a browser installed and it could be one of many selected by the distributor (OEM). You can't say the same for Windows (*). You can use package installer utilities (of which I can name at least 2) to download and install a browser without needing a browser installed."

every (used) linux distro has a pre-installed web browser. *and yes, i can say the same for Windows. They just choose their own browser. duh. but there's nothing to stop you from installing something else.

[L.Cyphre @ Jan 15th 2008 7:12AM]

>The majority of the corporations the EU goes after are American.
Sure hope you can prove it, friend.

[Tony @ Jan 14th 2008 12:40PM]

Truly a glorious day! At least in Europe they have a real justice system unlike that circus in America! Go EU Go EU Go EU; cure the planet! ;-)

[Chris @ Jan 14th 2008 12:47PM]

It's not a problem. If you take IE out of Windows you can just go online and download it....

[John @ Jan 14th 2008 12:47PM]

Just because something is a de facto standard doesn't make it an open standard. I can't believe this bullshit. They developed their own standard, instituted it, why should they give up the game now, especially when they're replacing it with a new, open standard.

As for bundling IE, at this point it's a fundamental part of any OS to include a web browser. If people want a free browser, they will get it. Opera's case boils down to, "people don't care enough to get our product". Hell, even Linux builds normally include Firefox or at least Links. Maybe Opera should lead the charge against Links-bundling too.

[darx23 @ Jan 14th 2008 12:59PM]

Thank you! It's M$'s choice to include IE. Why wouldn't they do so? You don't see anyone angry about how the Iphone uses opera, or how the EEEpc uses ____(firefox?). I'm sicking of seeing useless lawsuits against large companies. If anything the EU makes me fucking sick.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 2:13PM]

The difference being, the Distributor can choose to install Firefox, Lynx, Konquerer, or any of the browsers available to Linux. With windows, you can't.

[KC @ Jan 14th 2008 3:04PM]

@Andir, IE to MS is like nautilus to gnome. It would be very difficult to strip IE from windows. If you're using explorer to browse the desktop or folders, and just entered a web URL in the address bar (in place of, say, c:\blah\blah), explorer becomes IE. Everything in windows uses explorer, from the control panel to the printers and network folders, etc.

Taking out nautilus from gnome and replacing with konquerer? I don't think so. You will loose lots of inherent benefits of using gnome with nautilus.

Swapping out one product with another in this case isn't as simple as deciding what text editors/mp3 players/calculator to use. It's more than that when the product ties in with the OS and provides a "seamless" and consistent UI to the user.

[John @ Jan 14th 2008 3:38PM]

Andir, the Linux distributors being able to pick and choose a browser doesn't change anything for the end user. The distrib bundles a browser, and from there you grab whatever browser you want. In this case, the only legal distributor of Windows is Microsoft, and they chose what browser to bundle.

The idea that people should be given some sort of dropdown on install to choose their browser is ridiculous. Companies aren't allowed to bundle software without adding alternates? What if I want my browser as an option? The choice of what to add doesn't belong to the company, so who does it belong to? Or do you suggest having it give the option of pulling the browser off the internet with a non-browser utility, in which case you're stuck without a program to render HTML if you don't have a network connection on install.

This is just as stupid as the Google lawsuit that the Vista search utility was anticompetitive. In this day and age, a browser is a fundamental part of a computer system and having something other than a default browser available would make the OS in a disadvantageous position compared to the alternatives. Mac OS would get to "just work" but Windows would have to jump through hoops just so you could watch pointless crap on Youtube.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 3:53PM]

That's fine then, open up the API that allows IE to interact with the desktop so that Firefox or Safari or whatever can be used to browse the local drive, install printers, etc. These lawsuits would be nullified if Microsoft was held accountable for releasing their standard interface specs. Being a market share leader with some odd 95% of the PCs in the world, I think it should be required to release specifications on the operation of the software.

Auto manufacturers list fuel types, voltages, compression ratios, tire pressure, bolt patterns...even the plastics have specifications. Why should it be any different for Microsoft?

[LJKelley @ Jan 14th 2008 5:50PM]

Windows Explorer is Windows. Everything about Windows is done thru the Explorer Technologies. Microsoft can't remove it or give standards so Firefox or Opera can replace it as Explorer is Windows. Even the START button & taskbar is Explorer.exe... HELLO PEOPLE. If Opera wants to be Explorer.exe they can create their own OS.

Second: Why is it that Firefox can surge in popularity but Opera is still nothing? I just shows they are sore losers.

Third: Opera also claims this is about Internet Standards. What they don't mention its about THEIR standards over IE. Yes, one of the creators of Opera helped found CSS but appearently the Marketleader is abusing its position if their browser doesn't follow Opera's standards. IE8 will, but one of the reasons IE4 won over netscape back in the day was because it was more 'forgiving' and showed pages with errors in better rendering, something that continues to this day. So yes poorly made sites look better in IE than Opera, but Safari for example also does good in this regard so its up to Opera to innovate and understand that old websites, and bad websites will always exist.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 15th 2008 12:31PM]

I don't know if your still reading this, but...

Firefox only has 10% at most of the market share, yet Microsoft is enhancing it's built in browser to incorporate some of the big features of Firefox. Why? They don't make money off it (as some of you claim, MS is only in it for the $$) and there's really no need to enhance it... except to push back and try to keep people from moving to this alternative. Since they are the market leader, and the Mozilla foundation is actually making money, Mozilla follows a good handful of the non-MS standards, and they are not paying license fees, Microsoft can't have this! They want web pages dedicated to their platform and their proprietary APIs (ActiveX, ASP.NET, etc.) If they keep browser control they can guarantee that everyone has a browser that supports their standards (Silverlight, etc.) because they will force update your PC to take it and push out as much competition as they can without having to release the specs on their interfaces. If it was just a part of the operating system used for file browsing, etc. Why add these extra features into IE now? It's typical MS bully tactics. Give the user something that sorta works like it should to maintain proprietary standards usage. After IE updates, you will see: "I mean, if IE works good enough, why download Firefox?" And Microsoft maintains market share, thus forcing their standards out to the world.

[Ray-- @ Jan 14th 2008 12:53PM]

the EU out of money already? Man they spend it fast.

[Neal @ Jan 14th 2008 1:12PM]

I was thinking the same thing...

[fplath @ Jan 14th 2008 2:03PM]

Right. Because the money goes to the EU...smart guy!

[DJWhiplash2001 @ Jan 14th 2008 1:17PM]

First off, the bottom line is if it's MS's product, they should be able to include what they want. They don't prohibit you from installing competitor's software in any manner. They just include a software package that they wrote.

But, Linux can lead by example a bit here. An install might have Firefox selected as the default, but with most installers you can choose which browser to install. It would be nice to see MS offer more choice in this matter, but unlikely.

[SIC TR4NSIT @ Jan 14th 2008 3:20PM]

On top of that, if you want IE7 you have to download it... Werent all versions of IE before 7 integrated into the shell like KC said above? I like the opera mobile and mini versions and the desktop version isnt all that bad, but come on, gimme a friggin break...

[Ty @ Jan 14th 2008 1:08PM]

How do you download Opera if you don't have a web browser?

[Andreas @ Jan 14th 2008 1:17PM]

maybe they should have a physical distribution system of their own instead of piggybacking on Microsoft and IE to get it to them. BTW, im a apple believer, but these cases really are just ways to suck more money. im with MSFT on this one.

[Andreas @ Jan 14th 2008 1:20PM]

the only 2 things I do not like about IE is active X and the fact that the OS is the browser. there is no real physical separation.

[Oinquer @ Jan 14th 2008 1:29PM]

yep kinda stupid this lawsuit...
they got a point in:

"This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time)."

but about IE coming included in OS is not tought by normal ppl...lol

[Jason Cox @ Jan 14th 2008 1:29PM]

I'm not sure how things work in Europe, but here in the States OEM's are already shipping PC's with alternative browsers included. It's not like Microsoft is stopping OEM's from shipping Opera on their new PCs, they (the OEM's) just get more money from the Mozilla/Google combo.

As for OOXML, listen, ECIS, you either get a completely open XML file format or we're going to go back to the proprietary binary formats. Your call. Microsoft is adding support for ODF in Office so you can always save your files as ODF if you cant figure out how to write an OOXML file.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 2:29PM]

Are you trying to say OOXML is completely open? Are you forgetting about the closed binary verification codes that check to see if the document was edited by hand that somehow Microsoft "forgot" to include in the standard?

[Joe @ Jan 14th 2008 1:32PM]

What a joke,and I wouldn't laugh, Number one opera's argument is bogus thanks to Firefox,numeber two this starts to setup a precedent and now makes Apple and Google easier targets which is one of the E.U.s objectives

The E.U. isn't just trying to protect Europeans, it's protecting European companies that haven't been able to compete as effectively.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 2:58PM]

"...that haven't been able to compete as effectively" ... because a company with market share isn't letting them by restricting access to the core OS.

[AdamT @ Jan 14th 2008 1:37PM]

eh? Norway isn't even in the EU.

[superaktieboy @ Jan 14th 2008 1:54PM]

can't believe i'm saying this, but MS isn't wrong here.. i mean .. why would you promote any other program than yours.. hell i'd even find it fair if MS just let people use their own software and nothing (thought that would be the end of Windows, but it's the idea that counts)

greeetzz

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 3:00PM]

It's not that they can't run their programs. It's because Windows doesn't let them run their programs as fast or "feature rich" as Microsoft's offerings by hiding APIs and not releasing documentation for the OS. Thus, Microsoft is creating an unfair market by abusing it's market share.

[superaktieboy @ Jan 15th 2008 6:16AM]

yeah but still, i give MS still the rights coz its their OS and not anyone elses (even though they have copied many features) but as i said "i'd even find it fair if MS just let people use their own software and nothing"...

greeetzz

[Jeff Lewis @ Jan 14th 2008 2:23PM]

Ok... please explain something to me. Microsoft sells Office as an enterprise application development platform. They have SDKs explaining how to connect to Office and interoperate with it. There's a large and thriving community of developers who do this. Access (which is part of Office) is still the most widely used database package on the planet, not only to hold data, but to construct application front ends.

As well, Microsoft has a specification for a document format that allows document level interoperation with most of the Office products.

So... where's the problem?

Office isn't even bundled with Windows - so that argument goes out the window.

[Ian @ Jan 14th 2008 4:38PM]

Hey, the rule here is "when you can't innovate, litigate." And that is what Opera is doing and the "wha wha wha there's no interop docs for Office" crowd is doing.

Opera cannot whine when Firefox is doing so well. The key here is Firefox is free. Opera wants to make money. They need to tale a clue pill and realize that the web browser has become a commodity.

What's next? MS getting sued because they included a TCP stack and the Trumpet Winsock guys are out of business? This sort of thing has been happening in the PC space since time began.

Operas failing is their inability to understand that their own business model is dead.

[SIC TR4NSIT @ Jan 14th 2008 3:29PM]

In regards to the MS Office part, Microsoft shouldnt have to do shit... If I make a new wrist watch, and it catches on and becomes the best selling watch in history, why should I have to tell people how I make it because they want to make parts or add-ons... Why not build your own watch and compete like Apple does...

And just like Jeff said, they have SDK's... If I tell people how to make my successful watch step by step, then it leaves me open to copying me and making knock-offs.

They are, in my opinion, only protecting a product they sacrificed lots of time and money on...

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 3:37PM]

You'd have a hard time convincing me that your watch was needed in order to use another manufacturers face. A watch is pretty generic and "open source" in the sense that everyone knows how a watch works and you won't be adding anything to the watch that has to interface in any way to make it better.

If you want to use a car analogy, it would be like Ford making a car that somehow obscures the seat bolt pattern so other manufacturers couldn't make a replacement seat for it. Of course, we all know that you can go measure the holes and make a pattern, but with software that's difficult by design to reverse engineer, you run into these problems.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 3:38PM]

Also, this ford would have to be owned by 95% of the world, and Ford would have to sue anyone that tried to make a car with a steering wheel, brakes, or an engine because they hold the patents.

[SIC TR4NSIT @ Jan 14th 2008 4:21PM]

Sorry my analogy wasn't up to your strict standards... Obviously it was enough to convey my point and thats all that I wanted... I'd also like to apologize for not being cool enough to "vote" myself up...

[Mark Leach @ Jan 14th 2008 4:21PM]

umm when you install Windows you're installing all the software you paid for. eurotrash

[Arttemis @ Jan 14th 2008 4:32PM]

"This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time)."

With the "interoperability information" being the focus of the "probes", and not the defacto inclusion of IE (or even Office - as some posters think), people should understand that Vista's incompatibility issues are the source of the problems. I agree with Andir3.0 100% on his posts, and even his comparisons.

Software developers don't want to remake Office, or even have their software included with Windows - they want to create a unique, competitive piece of software BUT are unable to due so because they aren't given the appropriate information about the operating systems for it to run as smoothly as Microsoft's own versions.
Just like Andir3.0 said in his comparison about Ford vehicles. Software developers in this situation aren't creating another Ford (the OS in this comparison), they want to create a "seat" (software) to use in it. Without the information about how to use the OS's features to design this software, you're left with intentionally inhibited and limited (intentionally done of MS's part) software - giving an unfair advantage in their favor.

In spirit of the original Henry Ford, I feel this inhibitor on competitors (in turn, inhibiting competition itself) only benefits a monopoly - and not the consumer, where competition creates lower prices, faster rates of improvement, and higher quality.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 4:59PM]

You better hurry and vote yourself up like the above poster claims I was doing... ;)

[Brock @ Jan 14th 2008 5:26PM]

Is the EU a shareholder in SAP and Bertelsmann? Else why are Microsoft and Apple always targeted for excellence? I'm no Microsoft fan, but I know the market in general would be benefited if European companies tried to compete on their own merits, instead of calling on city hall friends.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 14th 2008 5:41PM]

That's the point. They can't compete. The idea of the suit is that Microsoft is holding back information to be able to make a competitive product. Office has "backdoor" access to Windows that no other software has and it's stifling competition by not allowing other companies to make a visually and functionally competitive product.