European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability

[FordGT90Concept]

WineX is reverse engineered. It is in no way guaranteed to work or even near fully featured as the real deal. Developers that are in the business of making money don't rely on free-ware projects. This is why any professionally developed application for Windows, Max OS X, and Linux must be originally coded for Open GL.


As stated many times before, 99% of IE is embedded into the Windows Kernel. The only thing missing is the GUI in EU versions. Why is the EU getting their undies in a bundle over 1% of an operating system? Hell if I know. The EU defies all conventional logic. They just wanted money and Microsoft is easy prey with deep pockets.

 

[Wile E]

Its MS's choice to go into those markets, once they do they need to follow the laws of those markets, ITS THEIR CHOICE TO BE THERE.

Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.

that explains alot......

Quit trolling

this had to happen because the EU and other countries dont like IE being forced on everybody.

MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.

also the fact is that as ms has found out, its far easier to make the browser secure and update it if its not part of the core OS.

Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.

not really, its not alot of work, they can just do what alot of apps i have do and run a remote install(downloads the stuff from the net like a webinstaller, makes sure u alwase have latist build)

What if you aren't online, or your lan doesn't have drivers in Windows by default?

OS security is alwase MS's problem, they are the ones who will get blamed when shit gets in either way, Oh and OPERA is far more secure then IE ever has been, and thats OUT OF THE BOX.

Has nothing to do with this at all.

little note about ms update in win7, it is not in any way a web browser, its a standalone app that ms wrote specifically for that and it was a good move, even they will admit that, by removing IE from the OS CORE they can update it more easily as well as updating windows explorer more easily (updates for one wont break the other)

Still isn't the business of the govt.

If MS didnt like it, they could leave the EU market, plane and simple, you go into another country you live by its rules.

Just like if Intel dosnt like being fined by the EU they could just pull out of that market.

they choose to be there, they need to live by that market/country/regions laws.

Just because it's a law, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. If it's unjust or unfair or overbearing, it needs to be spoken out against.

yeah you can run dx games in other os's, ofcorse you wouldnt know that being a hater of all things not windows/microsoft.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/winex/ (just an example there are ones that are updated constantly to add support for new games as the come out)

Using 3rd party libs to enable DX compatibility doesn't belong in the scope of this conversation anyway, as MS is not the ones allowing DX on other OSes. MS themselves are not the ones offering DX support in other OS's, so that point is irrelevant.

once again you fail at history of computers and how things have developed.

IE3 was pre browser integration into the kernel, it could be removed without killing windows, it was later on that practices MS engaged in lead to them being sued and fined.

What practices? What EXACTLY did ms do with IE that was anti-competitive?

 

[Sugarush]

Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.

MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.

Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.

Though I don't quite agree with the ruling in this case, or say I'm rather indifferent, the market position of a company in anti-trust cases is of utter importance. The extreme case of a dominant market position being a monopoly, which is (almost) never an efficient market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
* banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

The substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives."

In anti trust the bigger you get the more scrutiny you are exposed to. Plain and simple.

MS has practically a monopoly in the OS market for PCs. (dominant position)

MS chooses to bundle their IE with the OS, hence gaining a dominant position in the browser market simply by leveraging their dominant position (not competing freely) in the OS market. (leads to a dominant position).

And obviously you can install whatever browser you want, but the average consumer may not know (probably doesn't indeed) there are other alternatives out there.

And that's why this new feature of picking a browser to use upon the Win install is really useless, since as somebody already said "If you know how to install an OS you sure know how to install a new browser for it".

Again, I don't really care if MS bundles its browser with the OS, I just don't like people generalizing things like "The EU makes up the rules as it goes and is out for money etc.". It enforces its laws and specifically anti-trust laws more strictly than other countries.

Do I see the eligibility of this case? - Yes

Do I see the need to actively pursue it? - Probably not.

But then again, if you have certain principles (laws) you should stick to them

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Again, being dominant does not necessarily mean antitrust laws can string you up. It has to be proven that you did something illegal in order to exact a punishment.

Take, for example, the only company that makes Segways is Segway. They are the only manufacturer in the business and as such, have a monopoly. That really doesn't matter. What matters is if Segway does something illegal to prevent competition (buying up competitors, preventing trade with competitors, etc.) and there is no indication that they have.

As the FTC ruled back in 1998 (United States v. Microsoft), Microsoft did nothing wrong but did require, in a settlement, that a board review Microsoft's API code to make certain Microsoft wasn't restricting browser competition.

The EU looked at the same case and found Microsoft guilty. If the laws were virtually the same in the EU as they are in the USA, how can Microsoft be found guilty in one and not the other?

Again, the EU is anti-business, the USA is pro-business (most of the time). Microsoft got fined in EU and not in the USA.

I recommend you read this (and I do mean read it):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman commented that the FTC investigating this at all was dangerous (bigger government). Judging by the FTC verdict and the EU verdict, I'd say the EU has much bigger problems than Microsoft (this fact is mirrored in the Intel case). The EU government is too large, too involved, and too restrictive to be good for anyone.

Again, the problem is the EU governing body has been given too much power, not Microsoft or Intel. The crimes Intel and Microsoft committed pale in comparison to the rights and freedoms Europeans are bound to lose with a government wielding so much power and influence over everything.


What if this corporate harrassment brought on by the EU doesn't stop? What if Microsoft and Intel decide it isn't worth dealing with the EU anymore? What's the likelihood of Intel opening a new fab in the EU (a $2+ billion investment that boosts the local economy)? What's the likelihood of Microsoft opening a support center in the EU? This is only the beginning, not the end. There will be more silly lawsuits and bad rulings to come. I'd flee before the EU entirely enslaves you.


Laws are written buy humans and, as always, humans make mistakes. Just because it was made a law doesn't mean the law should remain. There's lots of prime examples here.

 

[Sugarush]

I'd say it all comes down to your statement:

Again, the EU is anti-business, the USA is pro-business (most of the time). Microsoft got fined in EU and not in the USA.

But I'd rather say: The USA is pro-(big)business and the EU is pro-consumer.

And I'd say it's because the business lobby is much stronger in the US than EU.

The US cuts the business more slack than the EU as a result of this, but the laws are virtually the same (though I'm not an expert...)

As for the what-if argument, the EU is too big of a market to pull out of. And MS and Intel will pursue their business interests to the fullest, as there is a lot of money to make in the EU, they'll just have pay more attention to the competition law.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Pro-business is pro-consumer. Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want. Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer. Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.

Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).

Big businesses are bad. Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace. Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more. In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).


No market is ever to big to pull out of. It comes down to profit margins. If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale. No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.

Laws can make it impossible to compete. That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.

 

[Papahyooie]

And obviously you can install whatever browser you want, but the average consumer may not know (probably doesn't indeed) there are other alternatives out there.

And that's why this new feature of picking a browser to use upon the Win install is really useless, since as somebody already said "If you know how to install an OS you sure know how to install a new browser for it".

I totally agree... and when a consumer buys that new computer (im assuming this will apply to OEM setup as well) and a screen comes up in the setup that says "choose your browser" 90% of them will not know wtf to do and will just pick whatever is first. And 90% of the time, if what they choose (what is first) isnt internet explorer, they are going to be upset when they cant find that little "e" icon on thier desktop. "how do i get on the internet??? There's no "e"!!" Then they'll have to bother their tech savvy friends (who are really too busy posting on TPU to care about thier mortal problems) to find out how to install internet explorer so they can get on the internet. They'll never find anything they download if firefox or chrome is the default... I can say the only people this will likely help is the little corner computer repair shops who will charge 50 quid to install internet explorer again.

 

[Meecrob]

Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.

again, if ms dosnt like the rules, they can leave that market.

MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.

it must have broken some laws, they got gigged for it afterall.

Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.

again if they dont like the rules, they can leave that market.

What if you aren't online, or your lan doesn't have drivers in Windows by default?

if you are installing windows yourself in this day and age and dont get the lan drivers built into the setup OR install them first thing, then you probably wont be smart enough to deal with using anything but IE, possibly its time you buy a mac as they do everything for you except wipe ur bum, and Apples probably working on an ipod accessory for that as we speak.

Has nothing to do with this at all.

that was directed at ford who said that including any 3rd party browser would be a security hell/nightmare for ms to deal with and support, when it would be MORE SECURE.

Still isn't the business of the govt.

and if MS dosnt like it, they can leave that market cant they?

Just because it's a law, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. If it's unjust or unfair or overbearing, it needs to be spoken out against.

but its not the law in the country you live in/are from.

and if MS or Intel dont like the laws, THEY CAN LEAVE THAT MARKET.

Using 3rd party libs to enable DX compatibility doesn't belong in the scope of this conversation anyway, as MS is not the ones allowing DX on other OSes. MS themselves are not the ones offering DX support in other OS's, so that point is irrelevant.

but they arent trying to stop people from supporting it, they did try and stop any other browser from getting activex support.

What practices? What EXACTLY did ms do with IE that was anti-competitive?

1. activex
2. requiers IE code not W3C code to make a site fully functional, unlike every other browser who was trying to be W3C complyant AND then had to try and figuar out how to make the browser properly display sites that had to be coded spicificly for IE's crap rendering.

and again, if MS or any other company dosnt like the laws of a perticular market, they can just not enter/leave that market, if they choose not to, then they choose to live by the law of that market.

 

[btarunr]

again, if ms dosnt like the rules, they can leave that market.


again if they dont like the rules, they can leave that market.


and if MS dosnt like it, they can leave that market cant they?


and if MS or Intel dont like the laws, THEY CAN LEAVE THAT MARKET.


and again, if MS or any other company dosnt like the laws of a perticular market, they can just not enter/leave that market, if they choose not to, then they choose to live by the law of that market.

If pretty-much your entire argument now is based around that line, then you haven't read the other arguments in this thread. They're saying that "yes they have to obey European laws, but the same European laws allow both Microsoft and Intel to appeal against a verdict to a higher court (which they have), and that the laws suck."

Intel and MS won't withdraw from EU. Where there's a demand, there's someone to supply. It's the people of EU that stand to lose more than Intel and MS from such a move.

 

[Meecrob]

Pro-business is pro-consumer. Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want. Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer. Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.

no, pro-ethical business is pro-consumer, pro-business doing as they please isnt good for anybody but that business.

want an example, http://www.roadmasterinc.com/ , they make great quality products BUT they treat employees like crap and hire mostly illegals, getting around the law by helping the illegals get "legal" (they get them identities to use and other peoples ssn's) they dont get in trouble for it because they pay the right people off.

they also treat the employees like utter shit.

oh and I WATCHED THEM pay a fire marshal off to avoid fines due to using extension cords taped to the floor as perm power sources, thats not ethical.....

Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).

welcome to the real world, dont like it, then talk to your politicians about why they support/dont fight suck actions as you would like.

Big businesses are bad. Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace. Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more. In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).

agreed to a point, problem is medium businesses tend to become big businesses if they are successful, so unless your suggesting we limit how large a business can get b4 it has to split into separate entities I dont see any fix.

No market is ever to big to pull out of. It comes down to profit margins. If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale. No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.

thats what I am saying, if ms/intel/company X dosnt like the rules of a market, just leave the market or dont enter it in the first place, if one of us goes to another country we have to follow the laws or we get arrested and held to that countries laws.

Laws can make it impossible to compete. That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.

dont get me started on tariffs and "free trade" lets just say i feel we need FAIR TRADE not FREE TRADE.

 

[Meecrob]

If pretty-much your entire argument now is based around that line, then you haven't read the other arguments in this thread. They're saying that "yes they have to obey European laws, but the same European laws allow both Microsoft and Intel to appeal against a verdict to a higher court (which they have), and that the laws suck."

Intel and MS won't withdraw from EU. Where there's a demand, there's someone to supply. It's the people of EU that stand to lose more than Intel and MS from such a move.

but its ms/intel/company x's choice to stay in that market, they could leave if they didnt want to deal with/follow the laws of that market.

And I dont see a huge loss if Intel left the market for anybody but Intel, EU users could still get AMD and Via cpu's for example.

If MS left the market same deal, I have a feeling mac's and Linux/BSD would gain a nice large market share leading to faster development.

Not saying I wouldnt use windows, and that some people there wouldnt import or pirate it, but the fact is that it wouldnt have the crippling effect on the market that so many people insist it would have, It would just make it clear to MS/Intel/CX that they screwed up by leaving the market.

 

[Sugarush]

Pro-business is pro-consumer. Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want. Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer. Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.

Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).

Big businesses are bad. Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace. Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more. In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).


No market is ever to big to pull out of. It comes down to profit margins. If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale. No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.

Laws can make it impossible to compete. That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.

Pro-business is not automatically pro-consumer. Just take a monopoly which rips off consumers.

And anti-trust is not only about business vs. business issues, it is a lot about consumer welfare. But a lot of people seem to forget that.

Fine amounts are not established to ruin a company or milk its cash till it drops dead. Just look at the fines imposed against Intel/MS, they're a fraction of their yearly earnings. And that's why MS/Intel are never going to pull out of the EU.

 

[Meecrob]

Pro-business is not automatically pro-consumer. Just take a monopoly which rips off consumers.

geeksquad for example?

 

[TheMailMan78]

As an always wise mod told me yesterday gentlemen, "Don't feed the troll".

 

[Meecrob]

what, you work for geeksquad or something?

 

[btarunr]

but its ms/intel/company x's choice to stay in that market, they could leave if they didnt want to deal with/follow the laws of that market.

And I dont see a huge loss if Intel left the market for anybody but Intel, EU users could still get AMD and Via cpu's for example.

Won't happen, AMD will sell its $200 chips for €1000, people will vote their national and EU governments out of power.

If MS left the market same deal, I have a feeling mac's and Linux/BSD would gain a nice large market share leading to faster development.

Not saying I wouldnt use windows, and that some people there wouldnt import or pirate it, but the fact is that it wouldnt have the crippling effect on the market that so many people insist it would have, It would just make it clear to MS/Intel/CX that they screwed up by leaving the market.

You really don't know how the industry works, I won't explain it. But I can tell you this. MS pulls out of EU, the people end up losing more. Either ways, we are talking about things that will never happen. EU and US share too many businesses operating on each others soils. It will end up in economic-MAD. Intel and MS will live on in EU. They'll adapt better to the laws there, but they can afford to make drastic changes in the way they operate, and still end up making billions from EU.

 

[Meecrob]

Won't happen, AMD will sell its $200 chips for €1000, people will vote their national and EU governments out of power.



You really don't know how the industry works, I won't explain it. But I can tell you this. MS pulls out of EU, the people end up losing more. Either ways, we are talking about things that will never happen. EU and US share too many businesses operating on each others soils. It will end up in economic-MAD. Intel and MS will live on in EU. They'll adapt better to the laws there, but they can afford to make drastic changes in the way they operate, and still end up making billions from EU.

I know how it works, but AMD wouldnt push the prices that high, it would endup being cheaper to import the stuff from overseas then, and people would.

as to them leaving, I KNOW THEY WONT, and i agree fully that they will adapt, because THEY MAKE MONEY OFF THAT MARKET, if they really couldnt/didnt want to deal with the rules of the EU market they could leave, and all it would do really is hurt them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As an always wise mod told me yesterday gentlemen, "Don't feed the troll".

FordGT90Concept agrees.

I think the merry go round has come around a few too many times.

 

[Meecrob]

so that explains why some of the people in here are wandering around spouting off like drunk rednecks........

 

[Wile E]

1. activex
2. requiers IE code not W3C code to make a site fully functional, unlike every other browser who was trying to be W3C complyant AND then had to try and figuar out how to make the browser properly display sites that had to be coded spicificly for IE's crap rendering.

They didn't force a single web dev to use those technologies. Those devs chose to. If those devs wouldn't have chosen MS, MS would've had to adapt. That's still not MS being anti-competitive.

I know how it works, but AMD wouldnt push the prices that high, it would endup being cheaper to import the stuff from overseas then, and people would.

You're delusional if you honestly believe that.

 

[Meecrob]

They didn't force a single web dev to use those technologies. Those devs chose to. If those devs wouldn't have chosen MS, MS would've had to adapt. That's still not MS being anti-competitive.

You're delusional if you honestly believe that.

the fact is they COULDNT it would become cheaper to IMPORT then to buy amd localy, you just dont get it, I know people who live in fing canada that come across the border to get computer parts because its cheaper then buying localy, some of them drive 3hrs to get to a decent computer shop and STILL SAVE MONEY, you cant tell me people in the EU or UK wouldnt have friends send them comp stuff in the mail if it was cheaper to get it out of country.

 

[Wile E]

the fact is they COULDNT it would become cheaper to IMPORT then to buy amd localy, you just dont get it, I know people who live in fing canada that come across the border to get computer parts because its cheaper then buying localy, some of them drive 3hrs to get to a decent computer shop and STILL SAVE MONEY, you cant tell me people in the EU or UK wouldnt have friends send them comp stuff in the mail if it was cheaper to get it out of country.

The average consumer (which accounts for the majority), is not going to go hunting for PC parts. They are just gonna buy what the OEMs shove in their face. Building systems is generally reserved for enthusiasts.

You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

The average consumer (which accounts for the majority), is not going to go hunting for PC parts. They are just gonna buy what the OEMs shove in their face. Building systems is generally reserved for enthusiasts.

You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.

Why do you waste your time with a troll?

 

[Mussels]

Why do you waste your time with a troll?

generally, people argue with trolls to prevent casual observers from reading the thread and getting the wrong idea, or incorrect advice.

EG, if someone told you to lick your PSU to see if it was still working, you would step in and argue.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Why do you waste your time with a troll?

If a troll goes unchecked they can ruin a forum. We all take turns feeding him. He becomes like a pet after a while. You know a pet thats not allowed in the house?