Antitrust complaint
Following its investigation of Opera Software ASA’s antitrust complaint, the European Commission has confirmed that it sent Microsoft a Statement of Objections yesterday, accusing it of illegally tying Internet Explorer to the Windows PC operating system. Opera's complaint filed in December of 2007 described how Microsoft has been abusing its dominant position in PC operating systems and preventing competition on the merits for internet browsers in favor of its own Internet Explorer. Opera requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to allow consumers a real choice of browser.
Important to note here is that the Comission has sent a Statement of Objections to Microsoft. A response has not been stated, yet.
Read the press release.
Readers' comments 50
Left under the original article, as archived; 1 page of comments could not be recovered.
About this article
| Published in | Choose Opera |
|---|---|
| Date | January 19, 2009 |
| Author | Espen André Øverdahl |
| Tags | opera, microsoft, press, compliant, antitrust, beta, browser, campus crew, choose opera, chooseopera, community, contest |
| Original | Internet Archive |
José Torres19. January 2009, 15:39
Espen André Øverdahl19. January 2009, 15:40
Charles Schloss19. January 2009, 16:18
You forgot the USA vs Microsoft case
dirk19. January 2009, 17:14
Nico19. January 2009, 18:47
MS ships Windows with IE, so where's the problem? Okay, you can't uninstall it, but Windows wouldn't work properly if you do so.
And how about Apple: They ship every Mac with Safari, but the EU doesn't do anything about it. You can't even install a browser like Opera (or Firefox) on the iPhone, but the EU doesn't take care of that.
And how about Linux? Almost every distribution ships with Firefox by default (because it is Open Source?). But why not shipping it with Opera or another browser?
No matter if you use Windows, Mac OS X or Linux: With every OS, people get the same choice for installing a different browser:
- Open the default webbrowser (IE, Safari or Firefox)
- Type in the URL of your favourite browser (www.opera.com of course
- Download your favourite browser
- Install your favourite browser
- Make your favourite browser your default browser
- Have fun
No OS out there lets users know that there are different browsers out there.
For example: Safari doesn't say on first launch "There are other browsers out there, would you like to check them out?".
Once again: Please, don't get me wrong. I don't think that IE is a good browser, but I don't get the point why Microsoft should remove it from Windows. It is essential for the OS. Ever have deleted Safari from OS X? It's the same thing. So don't blame MS for shipping a webbrowser with their OS.
Remember: At least we need IE to download another browser
Charles Schloss19. January 2009, 18:57
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/01/19/eu
dirk19. January 2009, 19:04
Nico19. January 2009, 19:12
I think Linux is the only OS that can be run properly without any webbrowser installed.
dirk19. January 2009, 19:19
Charles Schloss19. January 2009, 21:54
http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/QA_Opera_CEO_on_Internet_Explorer_antitrust_challenge37767169.html
HellbillyDeluxe what what I have read and noticed Safari is using the webkit (webcore) code which is also used by mail and a few other spps
In Windows you need IE to do Microsoft Update on a Mac or Vista it is a separate app
I myself am on a Mac rarely use Safari expect when I can't get a site to open in Opera
as Haavard has pointed out
Nico19. January 2009, 22:06
Nevertheless, let's assume, the EU "wins" and MS needs to take action, what should they do (besides of making IE standard compliant)?
In my eyes, there are the following possiblities:
1) They add an option to uninstall it.
2) On first launch, IE informs you about different webbrowsers
3) Windows Update notifies you about optional updates (that would be Opera, Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome, Flock etc.)
None of this makes sense in my eyes:
1) You can uninstall the "frontend" of IE, but the backend (the libraries) are still used by Windows for things like Mail, Windows Update etc. because Windows would no longer work without it. It's like having IE, but not being able to surf the web with it. So all the security flaws and so on do still exist even though you have "uninstalled" IE.
2) Doesn't seem very likely, and they will have to inform you about EVERY browser out there. Otherwise, small developments like K-Meleon will complain again about MS because they haven't mentioned those browsers.
3) Windows Update is not a place to distribute third-party Software.
Do you remember Apple when they pushed Safari via Apple Software update to all the iTunes users? This would be exactly the same and no one will be satisfied with this solution.
So the main question will be: What must MS do if the EU decides to take action?
I can't imagine anything reasonable.
Let's assume the EU just wants that IE will be standard compliant:
MS is still on its way to make IE standard compliant (even though it is a really SLOW way), but it seems unlikely that they (=EU) give MS a deadline in which they have to develop a "good" version of IE.
In another blog post, I have read about several ways to install a webbrowser if IE isn't installed by default. I think that most people will get IE through Windows Update.
One argument was that most people get Windows through an OEM-installation and that distributos could bundle it with a different browser. But does this make a change? It's not Microsoft then who "forces" you to use IE, but Dell who preinstalls Google Chrome (just an imaginary example!) and people are kind of forced to use this browser instead of IE.
Isn't this whole thing about having a choice? But people don't get a choice if other browsers are preinstalled. And let's face this: It is not user-friendly of OEM-installations if they come with no browser and people need to install one browser.
Anyway, most of them will grab Firefox because they have heard of it. "Opera? Never heard of that browser, so it must be crap."
You just can't assume that people will consider thoroughly which browser suits their needs best and maybe try them all before making a decision. It is sad, but true.
I for myself tried a lot of browser and I made my decision. Even though I am really happy with Opera, I regularly test different browsers (but I am still in love with Opera
Most of the PC users out there don't want to make a decision. They just want to surf the Internet.
Please excuse me that my comment has become way too long, but that is jus my opinion about this topic.
To finally come to an end: I really like the idea of opening the web and showing people other browsers and standard-compliant software, but I just think that the basic approach is the wrong one.
Melvin20. January 2009, 15:22
That will be a happy day for me!
dirk20. January 2009, 15:53
incassociates20. January 2009, 19:23
- Microsoft update demands it when run manually - autoupdate is just fine
- Websites that DON'T work with Opera (still too many of them). No point in being 100% standards compliant when the real world doesn't think like this.
I bet that almost everyone has at least 2 browsers installed, even if IE is their default through ignorance. (My family keep installing Safari as part of their iTunes updates because they can't be bothered to read the questions!)
G.
Charles Schloss20. January 2009, 22:20
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/01/19/eu
IE has also hurt the web itself
Thomas22. January 2009, 21:03
John Hatzopoulos23. January 2009, 01:41
Have you ever tried any of these sites in Opera?
video.msn
MSDN
Outlook Web Access
Sharepoint
They all treat the Opera Browser as not compliant or inferior. Essentially forcing you in some cases to use IE just so you can use the site correctly. Thanks to IE though browsers are now free to download and use.
I think the browser should not be included as part of the code that makes up an OS. Instead we could be given a choice of what browser to use and it could be downloaded by FTP or other basic file transfer method. To me it's about separating the browser code from the OS code not the futility of removing an icon on the desktop and a few files.
Charles Schloss23. January 2009, 02:03
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 17:47
What is the difference? That all the browsers are "free" while the antivirus are not? Then Sun should sue Microsoft because they ship .Net with Windows and that makes their Java platform obsolete. Or Adobe should sue for Flashlight opposed to their Flash "runtime" technology. Or even Google because IE sets Live Search as default search engine.
Charles Schloss24. January 2009, 17:58
THe one advantage of Adobe's Flash over Microsoft's Silverlight is the bowser and os support
.Net and Java are two different languages, .Net is being used by Microsoft to write some of their newer programs
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 18:14
Ahahah, sorry pal but you live on another planet.
What harmed the Web was the whole "new economy" crap and the "bubble" built on top of it, that basically was a fraud. I can say it myself because I invested in the NASDAQ (I never said to be smart) and I lost about 70%.
Another thing that hinders the Web are developers, who are so lazy that they are HAPPY of developing everything to work on MS related platforms only. I can say it myself after years spent in fighting with my own colleagues and employees about the need of being "neutral", despite the necessary effort.
Yes, .Net and Java are two different platforms, .Net is basically killing Java because it is better AND because it is tied with all the other MS stuff. You tell me how many Java software you see running today on the average PC, or how many "modern" Web sites use Java. I've uninstalled the Java runtime and I am seeing I don't need it, while I am having difficulties with tools that are .Net based because I don't have .Net installed on my Win2K system.
The story about Flash is more or less the same as Java. I am waiting to see the same "cycle" of events. Now there is this "crisis" in between and the fact that MS shot in its own feet with Vista.
Charles Schloss24. January 2009, 19:35
That is because they have the majority. Not every one in the world use IE (Windows only). Think of all the Mac and Linux uses who get blocked from the web just because they don't use Microsoft IE standards. It is about IE preventing the web from progressing because they do not support modern standards. THe acid 2 test in IE 7 is a bloody mess. Other browsers passed that years ago. The end of sites blocking a browser just because they are not IE may also come soon. IE has become the slowest and worst browser in todays browsers. Most browsers are 2 to 3 times faster than IE. If all browsers just used the W3C web standards then web developers would not have to write one set of code for each browser
This complaint is about making the web open to all users no matter what browser they use.
Why Open the Web?
Despite the connecting purpose of the Web, it is not entirely open to all of its users. When used correctly, HTML documents can be displayed across platforms and devices. However, many devices are excluded access to Web content.
http://my.opera.com/community/openweb/info/
Vista was not anywhere ready for public use when Microsoft released it, their mistake. They needed a year or more work on it.
This complaint is not the first one against Microsoft there has been 3 or more previous ones.
I'm on planet Earth where are you on?
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 20:14
The truth, like I said above, is that nobody in "real life" cares of the "standards", the developers neither the "customers" who pay them to develop sites and Web apps. The developers just want to work the less as possible and the "customers" understand only the animated stuff and how much it cost.
If the web sucks on average is not because of Microsoft but because most people simply do not care or do not know anything better.
People who think of the Web in a philosophical way are a very thin minority.
Only a couple of years ago I had to fight with all the company staff I was working for because I wanted to use Firefox on the company PCs contrary to the current policy. Nobody in the whole company (who was providing various services on the Internet) thought there was something better than MS products and they really did not understand why I was insisting with those strange ideas of "other" software/platforms.
There is a saying: "you can't enter in paradise against the saints will".
dirk24. January 2009, 20:36
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 20:46
Speaking of browsers, MS never stopped people to download and install alternative browsers like Opera. If people don't do it it is not MS fault, on the contrary, it means people are satisfied with what MS already provides, which is "mission accomplished" from MS point of view.
What is the answer of the question: "why people use IE instead of Opera?".
Charles Schloss24. January 2009, 20:48
I am looking forward to the day when I don't have to see a site block a user just because of the web browser they use.
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 20:59
I've been working on a big portal for one of the major telcos here and it was being made in PHP by a bunch of guys who did not know any CSS and stuff and were using some randomly placed HTML 3 tags.
I went to the manager of the project saying the whole stuff was basically wrong and the standards and we could do this other way, modularize the code, etc. As only result I got fired.
In case you wonder why the Web sucks.
Charles Schloss24. January 2009, 21:28
Thing I notice about sites mostly low web standards in them will block non IE browsers and that is a missed customer
If you use one of the browsers that is not that well know, and you go to a site and you are blocked you fell left out.
I ounce saw a site that only allowed Windows and IE combo banned all Mac and Linux users. This was a few years ago. I sent them an email about the blocking. The responds I got was the site was open to Macs and Linux machines and other browsers.
My guess is that the easy way became the hard way when they had to update or fix their site.
I think the IE team has noticed how far behind they are, and are now trying to play catch up with other browser vendors. The Antitrust complaint is to make sure they stay on track and don't pull the same thing they pulled on Netscape.
Lorenzo Celsi24. January 2009, 21:37
I guess no many people in this thread has got real experience in the business.
Charles Schloss24. January 2009, 21:45
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id=29
Thomas Knapp25. January 2009, 02:16
But, shame on Opera Software for turning to thugs with guns -- i.e. the EU or any other government -- to get it what it wants.
Charles Schloss25. January 2009, 04:20
Opera is not the first
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/12/07/HNmicrosoftfined_1.html
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-100925.html
Thomas Knapp25. January 2009, 08:22
The EU's investigation, according to this article, was conducted pursuant to a complaint by Opera Software ASA.
If Opera did not have some goal in mind when filing the complaint, then why did it file the complaint? Normally actions are undertaken with objectives, i.e. something the actor wants.
Lorenzo Celsi25. January 2009, 09:06
Thomas Knapp25. January 2009, 09:41
OK, first of all: "Because IE is pre-installed in Windows" IS a good answer to the question of why it remains the most popular browser.
While there's obviously an extremely large "web community" of ... involved ... user, it's nowhere near as large as the "community" of customers who buy a computer with the most popular OS already installed and just by default use the applications bundled with that OS. Microsoft DOES gain a competitive advantage in that way.
Another factor is uniformity across discrete user communities. For example, my wife works at a large university. That university says to its employees "we use Windows on our computers. It comes with IE, which thou shalt use to browse the web, and it comes with Outlook, which thou shalt use for email, and we've purchased MS Office licenses, so thou shalt create thy documents in MS Word, thy spreadsheets in Excel, etc." The reason for that is simple: Since their tech support people can't be expected to know how to troubleshoot every possible piece of software, they choose a set of applications, and then require that only those applications be used. And they're prone to choose as many applications as possible from the same vendor.
Yes, all that makes it harder for other applications to compete ... but that doesn't mean that would-be competitors have any right to have gangs with guns (governments) step in and tell the company that has created such an advantage for itself that it can't use that advantage.
I hate Microsoft's OSes (so I use OpenSuse instead). I hate Microsoft's email client (so even when I DID use Windows, I used Pegasus in the old days and then switched to web-based mail when it became worthwhile to do so). I don't particularly hate MS Office, but I used OpenOffice in Windows, and now I use it in Linux.
I have always friggin' hated IE. I used Netscape. Then I used Mozilla. Now I use Firefox and Opera. That's my rightful choice to make ... and it's also the rightful choice of other users to run Windows/IE/Outlook/Office, and the rightful choice of Microsoft to say "we're going to sell the OS, and we're going to throw other stuff in with it."
Opera is not entitled to a "level playing field" except in a very narrow sense, i.e. Microsoft should not be free to bomb its offices, etc. And the "level playing field" thing is dangerous in any case -- what if instead of the EU telling Microsoft "you can't bundle IE with Windows," the EU told Opera "in order to level the playing field, you are required to develop and sell an operating system to bundle your browser with, just like Microsoft does?"
Lorenzo Celsi25. January 2009, 09:56
I mean, you remember Netscape/AOL/Mozilla and the Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox saga... There was even an auto-ironic extension that changed a different name for Firefox at every session.
Even today, besides Firefox, there are Seamonkey and Iceweael, plus all the Gecko derivatives on the different OS.
Thomas Knapp25. January 2009, 11:42
Why is Firefox at about 30% in Europe, while Opera not so much? My best guess is that a lot of that is a function of it having caught on in America (in part due to being talked up, a LOT, by the Linux and open source communities).
On the personal experience end, I've tried Opera several times over the years, and each time ditched it after fiddling with it a little bit. I liked some things about it, didn't like others, ended up not sticking with it ... where I found Firefox pretty impressive from the very beginning and didn't feel like looking further. I suspect many other users may have had the same experience with both browsers.
Matter of fact, my recent return to Opera was sort of a whim:
1. The anti-trust thing got on my radar and had Opera in my mind (negatively, but still in my mind); and
2. I recently upgraded to Firefox 3.0.5 and have been having some freezing problems with it.
So, the other day, I decided "hey, why not see if Opera is better than it used to be?" It IS better than it used to be. A LOT better. I'm sold on it. But how many people who last looked at it at version, oh, 4 or so, and who are happy with Firefox, have never bothered to check in again?
Lorenzo Celsi25. January 2009, 17:31
Haavard27. January 2009, 16:16
I suggest reading this FAQ before commenting, at is probably answers most of your questions/arguments:
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/microsoft-antitrust
As you can see from this FAQ, the fact that Apple ships with Safari is not relevant. They are not breaking the law. And Microsoft isn't being blamed for shipping a browser, but for using illegal methods to undermine competition in the market.
I think the bottom line here is that Microsoft broke the law. Surely, we can all agree that if you break the law there should be consequences. If Microsoft had not broken the law, they would have been allowed to continue to bundle IE. But they did break the law.
Remember that antitrust laws exist all over the world, including America and Europe.
Haavard27. January 2009, 16:16
Originally posted by incassociates:
I wish Opera were 100% standards compliant. Unfortunately, we have to spend enormous amounts of resources to work around Microsoft's devastation of the Web. If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, Opera could well have been 100% standards compliant by now because we could have focused solely on standards.
So Opera has been written from the ground up with real-Web compatibility in mind. That sites fail because Opera is standards compliant is just a myth. Opera strives for both standards compliance and compatibility with real Web sites. You can read more here if you are interested:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=259677
You do bring up an important point, though: The state of the Web today is because of Microsoft's violations of the law. How many years was IE6 the major browser without any development going on what so ever at Microsoft? What if there was actual competition? What if for all those years, the Web actually progressed? Where could we have been today?
It should be obvious that Microsoft's illegal actions have been, and continue to be, a detriment to the Web.
Even today, many sites actually require IE to work at all! It is quite amazing that nothing has been done until now. It took a small browser company from Norway to highlight what should have been obvious to anyone who cares about Web technologies.
Haavard27. January 2009, 16:17
Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:
Mozilla's Asa Dotzler explains this quite nicely:
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."
By the way, it is completely misleading to claim that Opera is hard to find in the radar. In Europe, Opera has from 5% and up to nearly 30% in some countries. However, browser statistics are extremely unreliable. Stats company Net Applications claimed that Chrome has a higher market share than Opra, despite Google reporting only 1/3 of the users Opera reported at the same time. Clearly, something is wrong with browser statistics today. Opera seems to be vastly under-reported, likely because of things like useragent spoofing and Browser JS patches, which need to be applied to hundreds of sites. There are a multitude of other sources of error as well, such as Opera's caching, which is more efficient than other browsers (and therefore causes fewer "hits" for statistics tracking purposes).
Lorenzo Celsi27. January 2009, 16:50
First, I don't buy the idea that the Web is not "standard compliant" "because Microsoft violates the law".
For two reasons:
1. The Web is just what people want it to be. When a Web site is poorly coded instead of blaming MS you should go blaming the people who made the site and/or the site owner.
2. There isn't anything like "the standard from God", the "standards" are only recommendation that software makers can decide to follow or not. Same for the Web sites developers who can decide to make their site visible with a tool or another. On a side note, a web site made in Flash is not visibile unless I have the Adobe's plugin. Is it "standard"?
About Opera market shares I've got more than 10 years of experience on the Web business and I never met anybody but me who used Opera, to not mention developers who tested their Web apps and sites on Opera. Yes, this is not a reliable statistics but it says something.
Honestly I don't think MS would have ever put any effort on IE if it wasn't for the competition coming from Mozilla (in its many incarnations - with Google at its back), because the competition from Opera was and is being pretty much unimportant.
Besides maybe the mobile market, which honestly I do not know.
This anti-trust story sounds rather pathetic, considering MS is not dominating the browser market but pretty much ANY market in the IT. I want to see the EU ruling against the latest 20 years of IT history and go back in time. You tell me what are the competitors today. IBM? Apple?
Haavard28. January 2009, 09:47
Microsoft is being blamed for sites being "coded poorly" because they have actively worked to make it so by using their position in the desktop market to push proprietary solutions. Their strategy of lock-in is illegal. We know that this is their strategy because court documents have revealed it to be the case. So there is no pretending anymore that Microsoft just happened to cause all these problems and were completely unaware of the damage they were causing.
Flash is not an open standard, but rather a proprietary technology. The Web needs open standards, which is why several browser vendors are looking into how alternatives can be developed to replace Flash. As an example, Mozilla recently donated $100K to the Ogg project.
Microsoft is still dominant in the browser market, there's no denying that. In fact, many sites still require Internet Explorer to work to this day.
Is it pathetic that a company which breaks the law is held respondible for breaking the law?
Lorenzo Celsi28. January 2009, 10:10
People decide if work for an "open Web" using open technologies and trying to implement "standards" or people decide to develop applications that work only on Microsoft or Adobe products.
I really don't see how those decisions can be enforced by the law and I don't even think it would be right.
I do not believe in "openess" that is enforced instead of chosen.
Haavard28. January 2009, 15:46
I don't think you quite understand the problem, which is that Microsoft has illegally used its position in the market to create lock-in, and thereby prevent competition, ("forced closedness").
I don't know why you think standards can't be enforced by law. Many standards are enforced by law already. Hospitals, airlines, and so on. They all have to follow standards determined by law. Are you saying that there should be no laws for how hospitals should be run?
Are you also saying that antitrust laws, depite existing in probably all markets on this planet, should be abolished?
Finally, Opera, Apple, Google and Mozilla would not necessarily be forced by law to follow the standards. They are doing that already of their own free will. Only the company which has broken the law would have to be forced because it has shown that it is unwilling to follow the open standards other browser vendors have agreed on.
If you think it's unfair that Microsoft is forced to do what others aren't, my response is that if you break the law, you take the consequences.
In fact, I will repeat this question: Is it pathetic that a company which breaks the law is held respondible for breaking the law? If you are going to use inflammatory language here, I will expect you to have some seriously hard-hitting arguments to back it up.
Lorenzo Celsi28. January 2009, 16:17
Do you expect Windows to come with Opera, Forefox, Safari, Chrome and my cousin's unknown browser preinstalled alongside IE?
Consider that in theory this also means having the same pre-installed browsers on MacOSX, for example.
I don't think you can ship any contemporary OS without a browser installed because that would mean the user couldn't browse the Internet.
I've been reading about anti-trust actions against MS for 10 years but I've never seen anything seriously done about it. So I expect even this talking to end in nothing.
Haavard28. January 2009, 21:20
I would expect Windows to come without any browsers, and then OEMs would take care of the browser, since most Windows sales are through OEMs in the first place. And before you respond, please read this:
How do I get a browser if Microsoft unbundles IE?
Windows would be shipped without a browser. New computers would not.
No, this does not mean that browsers will have to be preinstalled or removed from Mac OS X since Apple is not a monopolist. Again, please read the comments above before writing your own. I have already addressed this.
My questions remain unanswered. It would be nice if you could take to answer them before you move on to something else.
Lorenzo Celsi28. January 2009, 21:33
Instead I find this "anti-trust" stuff pathetic for many reasons but I find rather pointless discussing of it here. Lets simply wait and see what happens, if this other round of talking around breaking MS monopoly takes somewhere or just ends in nothing real as before.
Haavard28. January 2009, 22:38
As a matter of fact, Microsoft changed IE8 because of Opera's antitrust complaint:
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2008/03/04/opera-forced-microsoft-to-reconsider-its-position-on-standards-in-ie8
Lorenzo Celsi29. January 2009, 08:47
It means the authorities are about 10 years late, that in the IT universe it is like a million years. I guess the next action will be against the Normans because they invaded England.