The European Commission and Microsoft

February 6th, 2009

Last month the European Commission stated its preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.”

In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the statement above is correct. Not the single smallest iota of doubt. I’ve been involved in building and shipping web browsers continuously since before Microsoft started developing IE, and the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing. There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsoft’s business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.

Let’s think back for a moment to the activities in question. In the mid-1990s Microsoft began developing Internet Explorer in response to the success of the product known as Netscape Navigator. In this period Microsoft developed a fine product (particularly the version known as IE 4). Kudos to Microsoft for this. Microsoft also promoted IE through activities that the US Department of Justice and the U.S. Courts determined to be illegal. As result, Internet Explorer ended up with well over 90% market share. Once this happened, Microsoft stopped browser development; even disbanding its browser team. The product stagnated and then became a prime vector for bad actors to inject spyware onto consumers’ computers. There was no meaningful response or innovation from Microsoft. Despite this, there was no effective competition from the marketplace, no commercial entities gaining success with other products. This is not surprising — I don’t think there has been a single example of anyone ever regaining market share from a Microsoft monopoly until Mozilla Firefox.

As it turns out, Microsoft hasn’t succeeded in stamping out all competition. Firefox has made a crack in the Microsoft monopoly. And, given a choice, a significant part of the European Union citizens have opted to use Firefox. This does not mean Microsoft’s activities haven’t done significant damage, or aren’t still benefiting Microsoft in ways that reduce competition, choice and innovation.

Equally important, the success of Mozilla and Firefox does not indicate a healthy marketplace for competitive products. Mozilla is a non-profit organization; a worldwide movement of people who strive to build the Internet we want to live in. I am convinced that we could not have been, and will not be, successful except as a public benefit organization living outside the commercial motivations. And I certainly hope that neither the EU nor any other government expects to maintain a healthy Internet ecosystem based on non-profits stepping in to correct market deficiencies.

Second, non-profit or not, Mozilla Firefox is an anomaly — the only product so far to even dent the competitive advantage Microsoft created for itself through its tainted activities. A single anomaly does not indicate a healthy, competitive, or innovative system.

Third, the damage caused by Microsoft’s activities is ongoing. Mozilla Firefox has made a crack in the Microsoft browser monopoly. But even so, hundreds of millions of people use old versions of IE, often without knowing what a browser is or that they have any choice in the quality of their experience. This makes it very difficult to bring innovation, choice or improved user experience to vast parts of the Internet.

The extent of the damage is so great that it makes it difficult to figure out an effective and timely remedy. I believe it’s worth some effort to try. It’s easy to look at Firefox market share and assume the problem is gone or the damage is undone. But that’s not the case. The drag on innovation and choice caused by Microsoft’s actions remains. At Mozilla we work to reduce this drag through direct action, and the results are gratifying. If the EC can identify an effective remedy that also serves to improve competition, innovation and choice, I would find it most welcome.

I’ll be paying close attention to the EC’s activities, both personally and on behalf of Mozilla. Mozilla has enormous expertise in this area. It’s an extremely complex area, involving browsers, user experience, the OEM and other distribution channels, and the foundations for ongoing innovation. An effective remedy would be a watershed event; a poorly constructed remedy could cause unfortunate damage.

I’d like to offer Mozilla’s expertise as a resource to the EC as it considers what an effective remedy would entail. I’ll be reaching out to people I know with particular history, expertise and ideas regarding these topics. If you’ve got specific ideas or concerns please feel free to contact me. I’ll post more as the discussion develops.

Categories: Mozilla | Tags: EC, Microsoft

114 comments for “The European Commission and Microsoft”

1
Pingback from Претензии к Microsoft, по поводу навязывания Internet Explorer

[…] также присутствуют Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome и Safari. В своей публикации в блоге исполнительный директор Mozilla Митчелл приводит […]
2
pcuser said on February 10th, 2009 at 6:37 am:

“The EC’s judgements only apply within the EU.”

While that may be true, when fines and such are levied, everyone ends up paying for it.

“monopoly legal definition
n
The domination of a commercial market by only one supplier, worldwide or in a particular region.

Webster’s New World Law Dictionary”

Microsoft is not the only supplier by a long shot, while they may hold a large market share, obviously consumers have made the choice to use their product (mostly because MS was smart in making an OS that runs on such a wide variety of hardware). People are always free to choose Mac OS, Linux, Unix or whatever else they may want, or even to develop their own. Microsoft has invested a lot of money in making a product that is compatible with the largest amount of hardware so that people do have a choice and until someone comes out with something better, they have every right to bundle their own product as they see fit.

What it comes down to is that Microsoft produces Windows and as such it is their right to put it out however they wish, it is their product. If Microsoft made it so that no one could install another browser, that would still be within their right, however people can freely download and install browsers of their choice, or even build their own to run on Windows. The fact that you cannot uninstall it means nothing as you can totally choose not to use it and use whatever browser you choose. As for certain things like Windows Update only working through IE, that is no longer the case as IE is no longer needed to do updates in Vista and above, and for the past, it was still within Microsoft’s right to only allow their updates for THEIR operating system to be installed through their browser.

Mozilla on the other hand has a hearty lead in browser usage for Linux, and while their certainly are other choices, Microsoft IE is not one of them (unless run in an emuation mode) which pushes back the claim that Microsoft has a Monopoly on their browser.
3
Pingback from Shame on Mozilla | The Technology Liberation Front

[…] of Mozilla and Firefox does not indicate a healthy marketplace for competitive products,” she wrote. “I am convinced that we could not have been, and will not be, successful except as a public […]
4
whatevern said on February 10th, 2009 at 8:03 am:

You lost my respect, Mozilla. Same as Opera did.

…
5
whatevern said on February 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am:

Mozilla is a non-profit organization;

HAHAHAHAH

With profits liek yours, you still call yourself like that?
6
Deke said on February 10th, 2009 at 8:36 am:

IE became a success in the first place due to the notorious bugginess of Netscape.

It took Mozilla forever to provide a stable browser.

IE changed the market for browsers by introducing a fairly bug free browser. After the introduction of IE the Internet usage sky rocketed.

The fact that IE is now part of Windows is not relevant. I use Firefox for all my browsing, but I would not recommend it to my parents. They barely understand browsing.

So stop crying over the fact that MS is better at their market and start making a decent product.
7
Bob said on February 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am:

@Lennie Also Microsoft forces the OEM’s not to install any other alternative browser.

Um…perhaps you should check your facts there – Microsoft at one point did put pressure on OEM’s back in the NN days not to bundle other browsers. However, this is definitely not the case today.
8
Pingback from Mozilla: The European Commission and Microsoft

[…] and MicrosoftWritten by Vygantas Lipskas on February 10, 2009Mitchell Baker from Mozilla has published an article on EC vs. MS case. For those who are not interested to read all what was said there, […]
9
Seb said on February 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am:

I use firefox and have done for a long time, but people need to realise that people need a built in browser when they get a new OS. You try and make a statement saying your open and a good company but you want to force people ethier to use firefox or not be able to get on the internet due to having no browser in the OS, Microsoft made the OS why should you tell them they have to put stuff on. Make your own OS if you want control. Id love to have you email me back to tell me why microsoft cant have a built in browser, seriously I’d love to know why!

Notice how I have no problem what so ever with IE being built in, but I use firefox 99% of the time!
10
Pingback from 451 CAOS Theory » 451 CAOS Links 2009.02.10

[…] offers to help EC investigation of Microsoft Mitchel Baker offered her assistance to the EC as it considers an effective remedy after it concluded that Microsoft’s […]
11
boklm said on February 10th, 2009 at 10:24 am:

“Shouldn’t the EU (or any government) go after Ubuntu or Apple for bundling a browser with their OS?”

Why ? As far as I know, bundling a browser with an OS is nothing illegal. The reason why integrating IE in Windows is illegal is that it is anti-competitive abuse of market monopoly.

Ubuntu and Apple don’t have a monopoly, how could they be guilty of abusing a monopoly ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law
12
Andrew said on February 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am:

“But even so, hundreds of millions of people use old versions of IE, often without knowing what a browser is or that they have any choice in the quality of their experience.”

This statement is exactly correct. In fact, most of my computer science friends exclusively use OSX or Linux and shun all Microsoft products. But I feel that lack of consumer knowledge is exactly the reason why MS must be allowed to continue to bundle IE with Windows. If people can uninstall IE, I guarantee that a non-negligible number of people will either accidentally uninstall it without knowing what it is, or will uninstall it in favor of something like firefox only to have the new browser’s installation break. What will happen to these consumers? How will they get a new browser to install in this day and age without access to the internet? Will Mozilla send free installation cds to every European affected by this anti-trust decision?

Also, if your argument is that many people just fundamentally don’t understand what a browser is and how it affects them to the point that they don’t even update IE, what makes you think that, given the choice, they’d choose a browser from a company they’ve probably never heard of?
13
Why required? said on February 10th, 2009 at 11:22 am:

I am using Firefox from it’s born but such activities of Mozilla team make me think they are brain dead and no way better then proprietary SCO. Live in peace. If your browser is better – it will be on top one day. But M$ DONT-HAVE-TO include options for third-party software to their products. Also IE uses activex which IS A MUST for Enterprise. Very likely Mozilla lost one of active users now.
14
Tim said on February 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am:

You should leave this case while it’s not too late.

Or your name will be ruined forever.
15
Pingback from UE, Mozilla contro Microsoft - m-bay.org il centro Dell’informazione

[…] pronunciasse, ma quando è arrivato il momento non l’ha certo mandata a dire. E mentre Baker annunciava la sua intenzione di offrirsi alla UE in qualità di consulente per dirimere la questione, ecco che […]
16
Pingback from Mozilla, The UE and Google: The Tatayet Syndrome. « Codorblog

[…] a weekend blog post, Mozilla Foundation chairwoman Mitchell Baker attacks Microsoft and announces her desire to participate in the European antitrust […]
17
Pingback from Mozilla joins EU case against Microsoft’s Internet Explorer | Microsoft News Tracker

[…] Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker voices the corporate discontent even if she is a trifle fuzzy on what should be done about it: Last month the European Commission stated its preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.” […]
18
Pingback from Mozilla joins EU case against Microsoft’s Internet Explorer

[…] Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker voices the corporate discontent even if she is a trifle fuzzy on what should be done about it: Last month the European Commission stated its preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.” […]
19
Manfred said on February 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm:

It seems to me that Microsoft just serves as a cash cow for the EU, if they need money they sue Microsoft.
I wonder if the fines are already included in their yearly budget.
And the Mozilla Opera claim reminds me of the AMD – Intel issue.
If you can’t beat them with better products, call them a monopoly and sue them; the EU is ready to help if they can make some money for themselves in the process.
20
Mark Blafkin said on February 10th, 2009 at 10:14 pm:

If I didn’t know any better, I would have assumed I was living an episode of Life on Mars. Really? we need to go back and rehash something that was adjudicated and remedied 10 years ago? At a time when the facts prove beyond any doubt that the arguments being made are absurd? Seriously… I’m with @Tim: Get out while you can, Mitchell!
@Andrew – You are absolutely right. Mitchell seems to wants to sue Microsoft because there are a few million borderline Luddites out there who refuse to upgrade to any new browser, let alone Firefox or Opera. I made a similar point in our blog today:

http://blog.actonline.org/2009/02/so-thats-why-google-hasnt-cancelled-its-payments-to-mozilla.html
21
Ravi said on February 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm:

This is completely ridiculous. Will European manufactured cars like BMW & Mercedes stop loading top end GPS navigation in their exported cars to US or start loading it with multiple GPS systems so that the user can choose one.
22
sigh said on February 11th, 2009 at 1:06 am:

@Ravi

The only completely ridiculous thing here is your understanding of the situation. How about at least educating yourself before spouting nosense?

Your comparison shows that you haven’t a clue what this case is all about.

BMW and Mercedes did not break the law with their GPS systems. They did not abuse their dominant position in one market to prevent competition in another market.

Microsoft DID abuse its dominant position in one market (desktop) to prevent competition in another market (browsers). This is ILLEGAL.

Please get a clue before commenting
23
sigh said on February 11th, 2009 at 1:17 am:

@Manfred

What’s with the racism against the EU? Did you conveniently forget that the same thing happened in the US?

Get a clue please.

And this quote is relevant here:

“The EU used the same anti-trust law against other large European companies. You think that a few billion Euro is inflating the economy? You sound like a dumb American patriotard.”
24
Pratt said on February 11th, 2009 at 1:23 am:

What a cry baby, grow up.
25
sigh said on February 11th, 2009 at 3:42 am:

@Pratt

Who are you talking to?
26
Tommy said on February 11th, 2009 at 3:50 am:

First, we need to understand what we are talking here.

It is not about Microsoft, the richest IT-company vs “poor” Opera (or any other company).

It is not about cashing money from Microsoft because it has it.

It is about getting justice for the Internet users, Internet-browser builders and even for operating system markets.

There is two words. “Dominant position on the market” and “Monopoly position on the market”. First one is that company might have even only a 25% market share, but it might have such big share when compared to other competitors, that it can control market prices, used products and affect development of the markets. The second one is the situation when company is the only player on the specific markets and there is no competitors.

Everyone understands that monopoly is very bad situation. And usually all monopolies are protected by governments. There can be two kind monopolies, the natural and the legal. Monopolies what are protected by governments are the legal ones. And the natural monopolies has grown as itself, without controlling, first the company/companies gaining a dominant position on the markets.

There is anti-trust laws against these. Sometimes it ends up that few big companies on the same market gets almost equal share, among multiple smaller companies, with very small share totally. In this cases, sometimes these big companies makes the deal, not to compete each other (price wars etc). To protect common interests. Because they have biggest share on the market together, they can control it together as they please. And smaller companies can not compete with them because they just don’t have the market power.

Then there is possibility, that corporation gets the dominant position on the market, it starts controlling the markets and grows up, until it is so big that it is almost a monopoly. In these cases, to get to these markets, you need to first brake the affect what the dominant position is having. It is not easy because where ever you go, you only see it’s products used. No real choses for customers to choose what they want to use.

In this situation, there is government what checks the situations on the markets and listen competitors complains and checks if there is something what against law.

If situation is such that the government judges one company to dominant position on the markets, the special laws gets applied to this company. The company can still work as always, but it just can not use it dominant position on other markets to conquer other markets. That is illegal.

If there is no rules on the markets, the dominant position owning company will end up to monopoly situation. Then all the customers will suffer because the company with monopoly, does not need to develop anymore it’s products. There is no need to lower the prices, but it can rise them up what ever it likes. Because everyone who needs it’s products, need to use it’s products, not competitors.

The dominant position, what Microsoft has. Has same kind effect. Microsoft’s products are used on OEM’s computers, it’s Internet Browser comes with the OS. It’s MSN Messenger comes with the OS. etc etc. It has tied other products from other markets, to it’s main product, the operating system. So it has one big bundled product what includes all it’s products.

Because Microsoft has dominant position on the OS markets, with it’s NT operating system. (Windows XP, Vista and 7 all includes the NT operating system, the same operating system since NT3 and NT4, versions are just 5.1, 6.0 and 6.1. The naming has changed to fool normal users that new windows would not be the same OS as it was. And many falls to that marketing). It could any day bundle a new product with it’s NT operating system, and the product would get in few years over 80% market share. Without the need to implant features what customers needs, it just would be available “free” for all Windows users.

Now ask your self. What you would feel if you have gained 50% share on the web browsers markets by pushing money to development and features what users want and customers really likes your product when they need to choose it from 5 choises and one of those is Internet Explorer. And then Microsoft choose to bundle the Internet Explorer to it’s NT operating system so it is preinstalled to the system for the Windows customers?

Now every Windows user, has preinstalled Internet browser on their desktop. No need to install any other browser from CD or other disks. You just click the icon on the desktop and you are on the web…

And because Microsoft has over 80% market share with it’s NT operating system on the OS markets, over 80% users has Internet Explorer on their machines. Preinstalled, pushed to their desktop and suggested by marketing how fun, easy and secure it is. Most users do not want to learn any technical stuff. They just want to read news pages, enjoy the facebook and youtube and browse the web. Internet Explorer does all that just fine. They do not change the browser because the preinstalled is enough for them. Even it would suck when comparing features of other browsers on the markets…

Microsoft even integrated the Internet Explorer to it’s operating systems, so it could not be removed (there is applications what delete some of IE files and changes the register keys, but does not remove it, just brake it).
So you ended to situation that Internet Explorer was on your machine, always. All software makers coded their applications so they used Internet Explorer to render help files and other stuff to, instead doing first checks to system that what is the default browser and used that.

When we talk about operating systems, we talk only about NT (“hybrid kernel” with microkernel structure), Linux (monolith kernel) and so on, because those are the operating systems. Nothing else.

http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

We do not talk about the marketing term “operating system” what is actually the software system. You do not need internet browser to run your applications. The Internet Browser itself needs an operating system to run. All applications needs at least the operating system. Usually all applications needs an operating system, system applications, software libraries and all kind other stuff to work. Applications can offer you an graphical user interface or commandline. The fact just stays, the operating system is “under the hood”.

The Operating System and Internet Browser are two different products. Same is for all other applications like notepad, solitare and moviemaker. Those ain’t part of the operating system. The Operating System is the most important software on the software system because it controls all the other applications.

In history, Microsoft has integrated all kind applications to operating system itself. Like Internet Explorers parts was integrated to operating system, so when the Internet Explorer got infected, it was already on the Operating System itself too. Now on the Windows 7, the NT 6.1 operating system should’t anymore include the Internet Explorer parts. On Windows Vista, the NT6 operating system, still includes those.

When you use Linux distributions like Ubuntu, you use Linux operating system. If you use Mozilla Firefox on it, it ain’t part of the Operating System. It comes preinstalled but you can remove it. You can even use alternate installation disk and install the whole software system without Firefox preinstalled. You are free to do what you want. You can swap Mozilla Firefox to Opera browser and share that disk to your friends, bundle it to computers what you can sell and your customers would get Opera instead Firefox.

But problem is, no one else has dominant position on the OS markets than Microsoft. That is the fact what stays.
If Apple would get dominant position on the OS markets, same rules would apply to it. Then instead EU vs Microsoft, it would be EU vs Apple. But, we are in this situation so we need to fix it first and not build theories what if….

The thing is that special laws applies the company when governments rules that company has dominant position on the markets. After that, company is tied to follow those rules.

Microsoft had anti-trust case against it in 90’s. And since then, Microsoft has ruled to own dominant position on the OS markets and is still in such. Microsoft even had monopoly on the Intel-compatible computers then. It had deals with OEM’s that if they sell other OS’s than ones from Microsoft, they loose the permit to sell Microsoft OS’s and that would simply kill them from the computer markets because people needed Windows OS’s. That is position what Microsoft got only building vendor lock-ins to it’s products.

“The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court”s determination that Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Microsoft”s operating system monopoly is protected, in part, by the “applications barrier to entry.” See id. at 55-56. The applications barrier to entry exists because an operating system serves as a platform for applications that computer users desire to run on top of the operating system. If a competing operating system has a limited number of users, software developers have little incentive to develop applications for that operating system. Without a rich set of applications, it is unlikely that many consumers will switch to the competing operating system.

Middleware products, however, offer the potential for eroding the applications barrier to entry. A middleware program is not an operating system, but rather is platform software that runs on top of the operating system. Middleware enables application developers to write programs that run on the middleware platform rather than directly on the operating system this allows the application to run on any operating system that the middleware runs on, without requiring the application developer to port its applications to multiple operating systems. Middleware therefore can facilitate the creation of a range of cross-platform applications, which in turn could make non-Windows operating systems more attractive to users and enable those operating systems to compete on their merits.

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court”s conclusion that Microsoft unlawfully maintained its operating system monopoly by engaging in a range of exclusionary conduct designed to quash the nascent threat to the applications barrier to entry posed by middleware products. In particular, Microsoft engaged in a campaign to eliminate the potential threat from the Netscape Navigator web browser by placing restrictions on OEMs, integrating Internet Explorer into Windows in a manner that did not permit users or the OEMs to remove access, and engaging in restrictive and exclusionary practices with respect to Internet Access Providers, ISVs, and Apple. Microsoft was also found to have attempted to mislead and threaten software developers in order to contain the competitive threat from “Java” middleware technologies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court”s conclusion that all of this exclusionary conduct violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

Microsoft was ruled to be sliced to three parts. One company to build OS. One company to build Internet Browser and one company to build Office applications. They fighted very hard to get this judgement off, and in the end one judge did it to favor Microsoft.

I say that Microsoft was very stupid then, because if they would take that judment as it was. They could do almost anything since then to these days.
Last year U.S compete deparment ruled that they continue keeping Microsoft in the leech, because if they release Microsoft, they can use again their dominant position on the OS markets to do what ever they want.
27
Monopoly Abuse said on February 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am:

I can’t believe how people react here without understanding the charge. Which in MONOPOLY ABUSE. Comparisons with other companies whether car makers or other software makers do not apply because they do not have a monopoly. It’s that simple! If Apple had 95% of the desktop market and Microsoft 5%, it’s Apple that would be charged with monopoly abuse if it did what Microsoft does now.

Furthermore European law applies in Europe, monopoly abuse is illegal. Period. A European company, Opera (not Mozilla), filed a charge against Microsoft. That charge has been investigated by the European Commissioner for competition, and will now be brought to court unless Microsoft and the EC settle the dispute.
28
Pingback from Should Mozilla stay out of the whole IE/EU antitrust mess? | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

[…] Baker appears to be getting ready to wade in pretty deep: […]
29
Pingback from Pacoup’s Blog » Blog Archive

[…] Read this. […]
30
SilverWavw said on February 11th, 2009 at 11:26 am:

Ok pragmatic solution:

The EU states that MS has to include the top 5? most popular browsers with IE and the user is asked which one they would like to use on first use after install.

Yes it not the fairest solution in the world by its quick and easy to administer and police.

The Small Print:
The Browser Maker would have to ask to be put on the list, pass a functionality test and agree to provide updates.

MS would be forced to agree not to favour one browser over the other.

A trusted firm would need to work out the popularity.

On first use if there is net connectivity the list is updated.
Any problems and you go with the old list.
31
SilverWave said on February 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am:

Ok pragmatic solution: Continued…

The cherry on the top is to address the previously sold MS OS’s in the EU.

MS to use their Update Service to offer this as a Critical Update (This is valid as it is at least as critical as WGA).

This would need to be offered to any one in the EU.
32
Mark Blafkin said on February 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pm:

Will try again, since my previous reply didn’t seem to make it through the censors.

@sigh – You’re actually wrong about the facts. The legal theory that Microsoft was using its dominance in Windows to stop competition/gain a dominant position in the browser market was thrown out relatively early in the US case. They were instead found to have used illegal methods to protect their existing monopoly on the desktop. The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows was NOT found to be an abuse.

What is more, is that facts that have piled up since the US trial have only provided MORE support for Microsoft’s defense.

* Every major operating system today includes a browser – even MOBILE operating systems. The charge that this design decision was merely a ruse to lock out competitors looks silly in hindsight. Consumers want that functionality out of the box, so operating system developers and OEM’s make sure to include browser functionality.

* Microsoft has lost about 25% Market share worldwide, averaging about an 8% per year drop. In Europe, IE is down under 60%. Mozilla has picked up the majority of this so far, but Apple’s Safari browser and Google’s Chrome are also gaining. Much like the Commission’s case on Media Player, they aren’t letting the facts get in the way of good rhetoric.

* When Microsoft Slowed its IE Innovation, Competitors Emerged and Started Taking Market Share. . . Microsoft Started Innovating Again. The fact that Microsoft includes IE in Windows didn’t prevent it as the government/etc. asserted at the time! Following the consent decree with the USDOJ, Microsoft enabled consumers and OEMs to hide IE and set alternative browsers to be the default. There is nothing limiting Opera or Mozilla’s access to Windows users, and the change in market share demonstrates the market is working just fine despite Microsoft’s inclusion of IE with Windows.

* Oh and one more for good measure. During the trial, Bill Gates said that somewhere in a garage somewhere there is a few guys building a company that would topple Microsoft some day. Sergei and Larry were literally working out of a garage when he said that.

So, the EC is now out to prove that the inclusion of IE in Windows was anticompetitive and deserves a remedy that goes beyond giving OEMs and consumers the ability to hide IE and make other browsers the default. A charge the US courts threw out even when the DOJ had a much better fact pattern to work with. Oh, and their effort to do the same thing with Media Player has proved disastrously ineffective. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that they won’t keep trying…
33
Monopoly Abuse said on February 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm:

@Mark Blafkin
IE’s falling market share is not that relevant to the case, what matters is that Microsoft has used it’s dominant near-monopoly market share in the desktop market to give other products (in this case their browser) an unfair advantage. Which ever way you turn it, it’s hard to deny that IE has an advantage by the fact that it’s being distributed as part of Windows. It’s also hard to deny that Windows has a near monopoly of the desktop market. These are the facts that matter most.

The media player remedy was a fiasco indeed, one can assume that the commission will have learned something from that and apply a different remedy this time.
34
Pingback from Q&A on Mozilla and the European Commission :: The Mozilla Blog

[…] The European Commission and Microsoft […]
35
Pingback from Perguntas e respostas sobre a Mozilla e a Comissão Europeia :: O Blog da Mozilla no Brasil

[…] The European Commission and Microsoft […]
36
annie said on February 12th, 2009 at 12:43 am:

The issue of Internet Explorer can not be resolved by forcing Microsoft to remove it from Windows there are too many third party applications that now rely on it. eg Yosemite Backup Software requires IE to present to operate. Why does a piece of Backup Software require a web browser? If you are providing a web interface to manage backups, why not use a standard web server? That is because Microsoft provides an integrated browser which does not need a web server to access the Operating System.
What is required is for Microsoft to do is to remove IE from all future versions of Windows, so that it is a separate download. In addition Microsoft must change Windows so that administration it requires dedicated binaries not using IE and a standard web client interface which can be managed using any web browser. Third party vendors then must integrate with the web server to provide application interfaces which are accessible by any browser.
In order to provide choice in respect of the web server on Windows, it is important that Apache must be able to fully replace IIS if the customer should wish to.
37
Anders Otte said on February 12th, 2009 at 1:48 am:

Just my thoughts:

* Decouple Windows and Internet Explorer. That is sell Internet Explorer separately (for a price) and remove the help system to Internet Explorer lock-in.

* Have EU force companies with more than say 50% marketshare to use open documented standards and fully documented APIs (FREELY available API documentation that is). Also it would be good to disallow monopolies from making “supersets” of open standards defined by others.

* Another product that is just as big a threat to the internet is Adobe Flash.

* On another note Mozilla could also do with a more open policy about it’s search engine (e.g. Google) lock-in. Especially with an easier user opt-out.

Best regards,
Anders Otte
38
Pingback from Mozilla Joins EU « Tarpon’s Swamp

[…] Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker has stated her full support for the EU’s conviction that Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to Windows is harmful to the competition. They will offer full cooperation and will assist the EU with their expertise on the browser market. She wrote on her blog: […]
39
Godzilla said on February 12th, 2009 at 2:16 am:

Total fluff !!.and u writing such stuff when Industry going from slowdown??…you are loosing a lot then !!..I think this article is written just to get moral support fro community..unnecessary debate goin on..n Mitchell Baker even not bothering to jump in and reply !

Mozilla done a good job in past and people do have some expectations from them to come up with something better..If they improve on their own..no wonder ppl will opt it as first choice to surf net..instead of crying and running everytime to EU and shouting Help Help !!..very sad !
40
kokosimo kokosimowitch said on February 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am:

Ms.Baker’s stance has nothing to do with “freedom” or “innovation”. It’s just fight for money, nothing less nothing more. Browsers’ market became more competetive since Chrome. Mozilla afraids that when Google will stop paying them in 2011 they won’t find any other such big source of money and Chrome will steal them their market share. So they try to steal IE’s market share but not by means of competition, innovation, freedom of choice and producing better browser, but by government’s decision. Then, having more market share in 2011 it will be easier to defend Mozilla’s positions against Chrome.
That’s all about market share and money. But you should remember what Jefferson said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have”.
41
DropDead said on February 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am:

What’s next. Windows media player comes installed, is that anti-trust as well. How about the calculator, notepad, solitare? Anyone can add Firefox and remove IE if they want, no one is stopping them. Just forcing microsoft to add everyones software to the install would make the OS so overloaded that everyone would need an IT pro to set up their computer.
42
feedo said on February 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am:

WOW, all I can say is after reading about this I uninstalled Firefox from my computer.
43
Carlo Gray said on February 13th, 2009 at 5:46 am:

I think that to came pre-instaled with an OS, the browser have to follow some rules, like respect at least 98% of the W3 patterns.

So if the browser respects W3 patterns it is “good” for everyone, then if you like/prefer some other browse you could install it yourself.
44
Pingback from Akron Headlines | Tech News, Sport News, any news that is interesting to Valerie Shipbaugh

[…] Mozilla Chairperson Mitchell Baker, in a post on her blog, somewhat contradicts Connor’s notion that bundling isn’t equatable to market share. […]
45
Patmuhpreatte said on February 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm:

Your web page does not correctly work in safari browser
46
Llewellyn said on February 19th, 2009 at 12:17 pm:

My take on the EU vs Microsoft case is to ask whether bundling IE with Windows is anticompetitive. It is if no alternative is offered through Windows. It is now, however, possible to download Firefox,Chrome, Opera etc on any Windows computer and even to use any of these browsers as the default browser. This does not sound anticompetitive to me….

I also believe that as Microsoft designed both Windows and IE, they should have creative rights to do what they please with these pieces of software.

I also ask myself where the ruling will take us in future.A fine for Opera perhaps due to its Opera Mini browser being dominant in the mobile browser market? ( I am typing this using Opera by the way). A lawsuit against Apple for bundling Safari in its OS? And so on…
47
Pingback from Talkibie » Archive » Mozilla to European Commission: We’ll Help You Come Up with a Microsoft/IE Remedy

[…] Friday, Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker offered Mozilla’s expertise as a resource to the EC as considers what an effective remedy would entail. According to Baker, […]
48
Pingback from Ballmer defende abertura para competir com a Apple « Blog Vivalivre

[…] Ainda, o efeito da Microsfot no mercado de navegadores fez com que a Mozilla se involvesse em uma recente ação da Comissão Européia contra a gigante de software, com Mitchell Baker da Mozzilla recentemente declarando ‘Algumas […]
49
Pingback from Apple iPhone Teaches Microsoft Meaning of Irony | The Minority Report

[…] Mitchell’s Blog » Blog Archive » The European Commission and Microsoft BARCELONA, Spain–iPhone maker Apple isn’t at GSMA Mobile World Congress 2009 along with the rest of the mobile phone industry, but the company’s growing success is definitely top of mind for key executives in the mobile market. […]
50
Pingback from Google mengt zich in mededingingsrechtelijke procedure tegen Microsoft (Internet Explorer) | ICT-Recht

[…] zijn Safari browser; Mozilla Firefox komt ook met een nieuwe, nog snellere javascript engine; en Mozilla’s Mitchell Baker laat zich uit over de hierboven beschreven klacht tegen Microsoft. Maar vandaag ook nieuws van Google. Google heeft aangekondigd dat het als derde partij deel zal […]