Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft 373
gubm writes "Google said it wants to help the European Commission prove its antitrust charges against Microsoft regarding the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with Windows."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
Better Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
1. Google has developed a browser. 2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Re:Better Link (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1, Informative)
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
They do, it's called gluezilla, and it's why those same .NET calls work under Mono on Linux.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2, Informative)
The COM interface and .NET interfaces are documented very well. That's how all the software authors are able to use them.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Asking people to know the basics of what the hell they're talking about isn't an appeal to authority. The previous person asked a question clearly demonstrating they don't even know the definition of "antitrust" while discussing enforcement of an antitrust law.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
Every time I see your posts I know what I'm in for too, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from someone who made up their mind long before they had any clue what they were talking about and who refuses to find out because it might make them change their mind which would threaten their fragile ego.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS?
Sure it is. But it's also a valid technical decision to remove the catalytic converter when designing a car and ignore emissions entirely. What does that have to do with if it causes harm to society or is illegal?
Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Maybe in the short term, maybe not. Certainly not in the long term, especially if it is as part of illegal antitrust abuse.
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
It's just sad. You insist the only consideration is technical and refuse to even consider why these laws exist or what they say... and you think you can make a valid argument from such a perspective.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
They market their own browser?
Yeah, for the last what, three months? How long has the case been going on?
MS was informed the case was going to be prosecuted against them two months ago.
Would you even consider installing an OS that doesn't even have a browser?
Sure, I'd just install a browser after the OS.
Nevermind the fact that home Windows installs depend heavily on being able to download drivers for everything.
Drivers usually ship on the hardware, pre-installed and on disk, just as a browser likely would ship pre-installed by the hardware maker.
The computing landscape has changed significantly since the case started.
Two months ago? Maybe you're confusing this with the US case where the DoJ convicted them years ago, or maybe the EU's previous case for other antitrust abuses?
Now the main issue is preinstalled Windows without offering preinstalled free alternatives, or even offering computers with no OS at all.
Coming up with a remedy that addresses all the issues will be difficult.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, the problem is, the ability to embed trident in applications is a service provided by windows.
Agreed. The solution is to make the service of providing an embedded HTML service to applications needs to be divorced from Trident and abstracted.
If trident has to be on the system...
It doesn't and shouldn't be.
...is there any reason to not have IE present as well, particularly when it makes life easier for users.
Yes. It removes the possibility of fair competition, stifling innovation and holding Web technologies back. It hurts all users in the long run because they are forced to use inferior technologies because developers are unable to implement better ones given the broken market.