Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
Intel Core i5-based MacBook Pros coming soon?
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
Netflix to roll out 1080p streaming later this year
TechSpot RSSSoftware
Mozilla joins action against Microsoft
The European Commission initiated new antitrust proceedings against Microsoft last month for bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system, and now the open-source group behind Firefox has become involved as well. Specifically, Mozilla has been granted what's called "interested third party" status in the case, which allows it to submit arguments to the European regulator and access confidential case files.
Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker has stated her full support for the EU's conviction that Microsoft's tying of IE to Windows is harmful to the competition and says it will offer full cooperation. The case initially stemmed from a complaint filed by rival browser maker Opera and gives Microsoft two months to respond to the allegations which, if substantiated, could force Microsoft to change the way it distributes IE or even be required to include rival browsers with its operating system.
Interestingly enough, one of the key developers behind Firefox says he doesn't agree with the latter solution, and claims that their current market share (over 20% worldwide) is proof that Microsoft's tactics don't hurt competition or at least that rival browsers can overcome monopolies by proving to users that they are better.
Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker has stated her full support for the EU's conviction that Microsoft's tying of IE to Windows is harmful to the competition and says it will offer full cooperation. The case initially stemmed from a complaint filed by rival browser maker Opera and gives Microsoft two months to respond to the allegations which, if substantiated, could force Microsoft to change the way it distributes IE or even be required to include rival browsers with its operating system.
Interestingly enough, one of the key developers behind Firefox says he doesn't agree with the latter solution, and claims that their current market share (over 20% worldwide) is proof that Microsoft's tactics don't hurt competition or at least that rival browsers can overcome monopolies by proving to users that they are better.
Related Stories
User Comments (15)
Post a comment| lncpapa on February 10, 2009 2:22 PM | This is absolute garbage. I can't believe Mozilla would
jump on this bandwagon. It's just frustrating beyond
comprehension. If I built a car and put some nice self
branded brakes in there Cobra wouldn't be taking action
because I didn't put their brakes in there. I really don't
understand why it's so offensive to people that they tied
their own product into their other products. Makes perfect
business sense to me. It's almost reason enough to stop
using Firefox for me... if there were some other reasonably
well function browser for linux.
|
| complex on February 10, 2009 3:36 PM | I agree, total nonsense. Just because IE is included, it
doesn't mean people have to use it and clearly large numbers
are not using it as IE market share is getting eaten into by
most of the alternatives. I would argue that this type of behaviour from the EU actually causes harm to consumers as Microsoft will need to recoup the hundreds of millions they pay in fines. How do they do that? You go it... us, the paying customer.
|
| maclaire on February 10, 2009 5:13 PM | I have to say that my heart 'DOES NOT BLEED' for Microsoft.
Microsoft has pretty much dominated and thinks they can
carry out their business tactics as they do in the US.
I will admit that Microsoft has contributed tremendously to the world of technology and they have earned that credit.
|
| Darth Shiv on February 10, 2009 6:13 PM | Originally posted by lncpapa: This is
absolute garbage. I can't believe Mozilla would jump on
this bandwagon. It's just frustrating beyond comprehension.
If I built a car and put some nice self branded brakes in
there Cobra wouldn't be taking action because I didn't put
their brakes in there. I really don't understand why it's
so offensive to people that they tied their own product into
their other products. Makes perfect business sense to me.
It's almost reason enough to stop using Firefox for me... if
there were some other reasonably well function browser for
linux. Well I think you have a point there in that an
operating system actually requires "brakes" - in this case a
browser, otherwise you have a tough time of actually
downloading an alternative!As ordinary as IE is, it is enough to get you on track to download an alternative.
|
| nazartp on February 11, 2009 9:08 AM | Originally posted by Darth
Shiv: Originally posted by
lncpapa: That is pretty funny. I understand
the original position taken by both the US and EU about
bundling of the software. The Sherman/Clayton Acts in the
US explicitly prohibits tie-in sales. Given that primary
mode of software distribution in those years was a CD or a
diskette it made sense to have IE as a separate add-on.
Now, how are you supposed to: (a) activate your copy of
Windows, (b) download the updates; (c) download the
alternatives? Absolutely ridiculous! I would have some
sympathy for the legislators if the browser and music
players were not universally free. Remove IE by default and
consumers would need to call to activate their copies and
PAY for CD's with the browsers. All that is necessary is a
copy of browser that you can uninstall from the system. And
you already can do that! IE as well as media player are
options when you install the system. What about Apple
pushing a bunch of software with iTunes? What about the
sites that only support IE natively? All this new case does
is hurt the end customers.
Well I think you have a point there in that an operating system actually requires "brakes" - in this case a browser, otherwise you have a tough time of actually downloading an alternative! As ordinary as IE is, it is enough to get you on track to download an alternative.
|
| tengeta on February 11, 2009 11:04 AM | Its not Microsoft's fault someone sticks with IE when they
start using their computer, the EXACT same way as it is with
Apple and Safari. But simply because its Microsoft, its the other way around.
|
| DarkCobra on February 11, 2009 1:19 PM | Agreed. If you buy a particular vehicle you are going to
get the specific make of radio (Delco, Bose, whatever) that
this vehicle manufacturer selects for their vehicle. The
same with the brand of tire they select (Goodyear, Toyo,
whatever). If you don't like that brand of radio or tire
you can upgrade it yourself with aftermarket parts of your
choice or you can simply chose not to buy the vehicle. But
you DON'T get to sue the vehicle manufacturer for NOT
providing the radio and tire brand YOU wanted!
Yeah I know IE is embedded into the OS and folks are upset over it. Get over it. Just like the car . . . the radio is embedded in the dash, either upgrade to the browser of choice or simply buy something other than MS.
|
| treeski on February 11, 2009 3:16 PM | I see nothing wrong with IE being included in Microsoft's
OS, for many reasons already mentioned. I just disagree
with how Microsoft forces users to, at least occasionally,
use IE for updating purposes.
|
| DarkCobra on February 11, 2009 9:35 PM | Your point is indeed a valid one as there are times such as
in updating MS where you are forced to still use IE in lieu
of a third party browser. I think this is a carry-over
from the early '90's. I recall quite well when there was a
major war between MS, AOL, Netscape and they were all
actually writing malicious code against each other! It was
brutal and ever since, the remnants of those battles still
linger up in Redmond, WA. So, MS has ever since wanted to make sure that updates to it's critical Gold Code were going to come through their OWN pipeline. Yeah, it's paranoia . . . LOL, but there was a time long ago in a galaxy far, far away when Netscape & AOL didn't play nice with MS in the sandbox . . . and visa versa! Personally, I don't mind using IE for the very limited purpose of updating the OS. Any other time . . . Firefox rules!
|
| peas on February 13, 2009 12:27 AM | If MS adhered to web standards instead of forcing
proprietary garbage onto Windows users, this would be an
entirely different conversation. They have caused a mess on
the web trying to gain a short-term competitive edge, but
for the most part have failed. Mozilla is proof. Problem
with MS bundling IE is it continues to give them an
artificial advantage. Moz has gained good traction but that
could be quickly erased by MS interference
|
| luvhuffer on February 13, 2009 3:44 AM | Quote: "Your point is indeed a valid one as there are times
such as in updating MS where you are forced to still use IE
in lieu of a third party browser." I use the add-on "IE Tab" that allows me to switch to the IE engine. I do all my MS updates in a Firefox tab. I no longer have any reason to use IE. As for the EU action, they are a bunch of profit by tort idiots that use lawsuits to fund their little operation.
|
| claritydoc on February 14, 2009 11:09 AM | As much as I don't like Microsoft, I cant see why they are
wrong to include IE with their OS, iMac does it with Safari!
|
| alinux on February 16, 2009 10:42 AM | I have to agree with you guys. This lawsuit is a ridiculous
waste of time and money. Apple does the same with Safari and
Linux comes with Konqueror and Firefox usually. Are they
supposed to include a version of IE just to balance things
up? So long as Microsoft don't stop other browsers being
used, then this is a non-issue. What Microsoft really did as
a criminal act was to hound Lindows out of existence, in
effect, by its lawsuits against the Lindows name in one
European country after the other. Where was the EU Comission
then?
|
| pmshah on February 17, 2009 3:35 AM | Originally posted by lncpapa: This is
absolute garbage. I can't believe Mozilla would jump on
this bandwagon. It's just frustrating beyond comprehension.
If I built a car and put some nice self branded brakes in
there Cobra wouldn't be taking action because I didn't put
their brakes in there. I really don't understand why it's
so offensive to people that they tied their own product into
their other products. Makes perfect business sense to me.
It's almost reason enough to stop using Firefox for me... if
there were some other reasonably well function browser for
linux. The kind of analogy you use makes me think
your vitamin pills got mixed up with s****d
pills.Brakes in a car are an essential part. You don't want a car that will not stop. Where as the original windows DID NOT contain any web browser and the world can well do without IE.
|
| MichaelLS on February 18, 2009 12:13 AM | HA, HA, HA! I love this thread. Okay - please try to understand this picture - one OS [ Windows ] is a head for tail design. IE is very much a functional part of the loop. Ripping it out is not an option. The flaw(s) is/are in the head for tail design. Break the loop and - blue screen. Fact! Now everybody else - [ OS as in, pick one, -inx ] choose a browser - it just works. Think of it this way - the Hub of the wheel is the OS - the Browser is just another spoke on the wheel - just another application / program. See the problem? Yes, WIndows can run another / 2nd browser - true. Now think of the real issue in this article - competitive domination in the market place. Who is fooling who here? What does the EU [ not ] understand here? Who is trying hard to leverage the market place here? Talk about Anti-Micro$oft. It could not get any worse.
|
Featured Tech Content - Inside TechSpot
 ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review |  ATI Radeon HD 5450 Review |  TechSpot PC Buying Guide |  Effortless Ways to Download Video Content from YouTube and Other Sites |  ATI Radeon HD 5670 Review |