[Dabhand16]

EU launches new Microsoft probes

The European Commission is launching two new anti-competition investigations against US computer giant Microsoft.

The first will look at whether Microsoft unfairly ties its Explorer internet browser to its Windows operating system.

In a parallel investigation, the Commission will look at the interoperability of Microsoft software with rival products.

Microsoft agreed to comply with Brussels' previous ruling in October.

"This initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has proof of an infringement," said the Commission in a statement.

"It only signifies that the Commission will further investigate the case as a matter of priority."

Microsoft has yet to comment.

The latest investigation by the Commission follows after two complaints, one by Norwegian company Opera, the other by pan-European software-makers group European Committee for Interoperable Systems.

Long-running battle

The move by the Commission's competition officials restarts a long-running battle between Brussels and the Microsoft that many thought had finally come to an end last year.

In October 2007, Microsoft agreed to comply with the Commission's 2004 ruling that it broke European Union competition laws.

The US firm's move came after it lost an appeal against the verdict, which included a fine of almost 500m euros ($745m; £380m).

In that case, Microsoft was judged to have shut out rivals from its Windows operating system to gain a larger share of the market for web servers.

Microsoft pledged in October to give third party program developers access to information that will allow them to make systems interoperable with Windows.

It also said it would substantially cut the fees it charges for such data.

Source: BBC

[Rob Barron]

I don't know what you think to this Graham and I must say straight away I am the last person to stick up for Microsoft! But I also wonder whether it is fair to penalise a company simply for marketing its tools in a package?

After all, as far as I'm concerned, I see Internet Explorer as a part of the OS called Windows and if I choose to have Windows on my system then I want it to have a web browser. I do NOT want it to have a whole load of browsers of which I am supposed to take my pick. If I don't want to use IE, I can still use an entirely diffeent one - which is why most of the time I use Mozilla Firefox thanks to Dave and Steve 'converting me' to it over a year ago.

I do understand why monopolies are to be avoided but at the same time I don't totally agree that we should stop a company from telling everyone it thinks its own products are the best. If another company has an operating system or web browser or anything else that it feels is worthy of a major market share, then surely it can market that product itself.

I do of course see that Microsoft has a phenomenally powerful resource with which to aggressively market things because it can afford huge global advertising campaigns that others simply can't match. However, it has this because it has the largest share of the OS market despite Linux and others having been around for a long time now.

I'm interested to see what others think, not because they hate MS (don't we all!) but simply on the basis of what is fair and right as business practice. MS is a business and is out there to make as much money as it can. If it produced a rubbish OS that was no good, surely we'd have stopped using it in significant numbers by now?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Rob

[Vinny]

I think the issue more surrounds what Internet Explorer has over other web browsers. Initially the issue was around Dynamic HTML pages - Internet Explorer supported these because they were pretty much "IE" specific. MS would not release what these pages were all about and thus to experience a new level of HTML and Internet Browsing, one needed IE. Of course, MS had to release it all and then other browsers supported these technologies (i.e. ActiveX etc).

What they are saying isn't that IE is bundled with Windows and thats bad - its more the fact that it is difficult to remove IE from Windows - but then, having IE in Windows isn't such a bad thing even if you don't use it - just 'cos it can't be removed isn't a bad thing - but it does make some money for the EU!!

[Dabhand16]

You make good points Rob. However, I think MS have perhaps brought this scrutiny on themselves to an extent. When this first kicked off in the states, it is alleged that MS made it very difficult/impossible for rival browsers to actually integrate with Windows to enable those who did not want to use IE for whatever reason (usually security issues) to choose to use an alternative. The dominant position that Windows has enjoyed in the marketplace therefore not only restricted personal choice, but also threatened the existence of the other software companies.

Now part of me agrees with your position of having opted for Windows as my OS, then I am happy to use the other elements of the system. In fact, back then I saw no reason to use anything other than what Mr Gates was offering, and whilst sympathetic to the software houses, I was not overly bothered (look at my face). Now i use Firefox as my default web browser, I would be quite miffed if it stopped working with Windows.

I can see nothing wrong with MS suggesting their products are the best, or even including them with their OS. I don't see that they should have the other rival products embedded either, as long as if you chose to use an alternative, you could just download it and use it.

To take another example, if MS produced a photo editing application that was integrated into XP or Vista, and then did not allow Adobe to run on windows to ensure that you used the MS product, a lot of people would be upset. But further than that, if Adobe was a small company that relied on its photo editing software to survive, it could be argued that by its actions, MS was using its position in the market to force a rival out of business. I know the counter argument is that MS should not have to appease other less successful companies, or keep them in business, but in the scheme of things, I think MS are safe.

To go back to your original point, I think that MS will always be under scrutiny to ensure they are not adopting restrictive practices, and maybe they are at least party to blame.