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This discussion has been archived.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.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Because it comes with the OS that's on that 'puter they bought a Wal-Mart.
Doesn't MS have, like, a 90% penetration in the market?
Unfair (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. What does Google have to do with it?
They market their own browser?
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.
Then why is IE still by far the most used browser?
Exactly, because it's bundled and because a lot of people wouldn't know how to get on the net without it unless they're offered a 1-click option.
If it was up to me I'd still insist on unbundling of IE.
It is sufficiently documented when IE suddenly, and for MS conveniently, became 'part of the OS', no doubt to take away traction from the then running court case.
This is just stupid... (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is this such a big issue, do I get a choice of Browser on a Mac, does Opera come pre-installed in Linux???
Perhaps Ford should stop selling cars with Ford radios in them because it isn't fair to Alpine...
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on leveraged monopoly market positions alone.
Fixed.
(As I've noted elsewhere, I disagree with some of the finding-of-fact material used to claim MS has a monopoly. But, the courts disagree with me, both here and in the EU. That being the case, competitors in those markets have every right to expect enforcement of the law consistent with those findings.)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
insert sardonic snort ... (Score:4, Interesting)
'Microsoft today argued that US House and Senate Judiciary Committees that the proposed Google/Yahoo deal, claiming that Yahoo's agreement to support ads through a non-exclusive deal is anti-competitive and would allegedly hurt innovation [electronista.com]'
Re:The choice (Score:4, Interesting)
You sure use the word fanboi a lot for someone who systematically goes down a list browsers, humorously lashing out at all but one of them.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
You make quite a few assumptions in your last statement. There are still MANY consumers here who just use IE because it came with the computer and it works well enough, AND have never heard that there are alternatives, let alone what firefox is.
As to your first comment, people have pointed out the competition angle, but consider also that when you connect to some site, your browser type is transmitted. Being the dominant search engine on the web, Google is in an excellent position to present statistical usage data across unique locations (look at it by MAC address). So, not only does it help Google, but they are now in a position to take a direct stab at the company that inspired their 'Do no evil' slogan. Now, whether this action is construed as evil on Google's part or not is up to the public, but at this point I look at it like the breaking point between two giants, and war is going to erupt.
The way I understand it (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
That is most correct. First and foremost, Google sells ads. They are advertisers. You cannot trust advertisers... at least not completely. You have to find out facts for yourself if you ever want the truth in anything if it's even possible to get at truth.
The Google browser? No thanks! I don't trust advertisers. I'll stick with things that allow me to block ads and stuff like that. And yes, when surrounded by evils, sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of them.
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody outside of the windows team even has access to the OS source code
False, several people in my company have access to the OS source code and they do not even work for Microsoft. If you believe that MS's own employees can't get access if they want, you're crazy.
MS is a monopoly, in its purest and evilest form, and it's provably hurting our ecosystem. In point of fact their OS is total crap, but no one can adopt the competitors because of the ball and chain.
I would allow them to live if they open up device drivers, file formats, etc. Until then, go Google, go EU.
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't.
Believe what you want.
I don't know what "history" you're talking about
If you don't know the history, you don't know enough context. The point is, when MS is not restrained by anti-trust rulings they do all of the things you say they don't do. So even if they were doing none of them now (which is not the case), that wouldn't be an argument against enforcing anti-trust rulings against them; it would be proof that the enforcement is having some effect.
Tell us what you've seen
I did tell you what I've seen. If you want full details, discuss with my previous employer your desire for me to disclose proprietary information about the project work I did for him.
Before you bother accusing me of lying, you should understand that I don't care if you believe me. I'm telilng you what I know to be a fact. If you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you.
and [tell us] how it was an unfair advantage
If their developers can communicate with the OS in ways that other companies' developers cannot, then they have an advantage.
But it doesn't matter. As I noted before, the current matter is about marketing advantage, not technical advantage.