EU Investigating Microsoft Over IE Bundling Again 299
vu1986 writes, quoting GigaOm: "Microsoft has confessed to violating its browser choice agreement with European antitrust regulators, after they opened up a fresh investigation into the company's behavior. This is a big deal, not least because it means the company could now face a fine of up to 10 percent of its annual turnover — $7 billion at last count."
Microsoft agreed in 2009 to inform users they could install other browsers. They did, mostly, but Windows 7SP1 users didn't get the software update. Microsoft is claiming it was just a software bug, and have taken actions to fix it.
what about there boot loader lock in (Score:5, Insightful)
what about there boot loader lock in that is even bigger.
So they going to fine Apple too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple bundles Safari with every computer sold, last I checked. In fact, I'm pretty sure Safari is the ONLY browser you can use in iOS (everything else is just a reskin). And I don't recall Apple ever offering a Safari-free version of their OS, or giving me a pop-up screen asking me if I want Safari or not.
Re:So they going to fine Apple too? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall Apple being convicted of abusing a monopoly. Or even having a monopoly.
Interesting behavior for bugs. (Score:4, Insightful)
In most cases bugs in your code is usually bad for your business. But Microsoft has bugs that are peculiar in that, it helps the company. It breaks competitor's products from the DR-DOS days or help it avoid compliance with court rulings... You know at some point people are going to say, "this level of incompetence is simply not possible, it must be intentional". And Microsoft will pull a Ham Burger and argue, "No! We are that incompetent!".
Re:Apple First (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, go after Apple's iOS boot loader lock first, since they have several times the number of devices as Microsoft that are affected by a lock.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any of its market segments, so it doesn't have to play by the same rules. Being a monopolist isn't illegal in and of itself, but it does mean you are subject to more stringent regulations to ensure you aren't using your dominant position to lock out competitors.
In my opinion, the attempt to force "Metro" down everyone's throat should be considered an anti-competitive act: it's an attempt to leverage MS's existing monopoly on the desktop into the smartphone and tablet space. It will probably fail anyway, but even the attempt should not be permitted.
Sanction wouldn't be about the bug (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sanctions won't be for "a bug in their software". They will be for:
1) Violating the agreement they made in place of the fine for the past violation, and
2) Filing a false declaration of compliance with the agreement in December 2011.
When you have a legal obligation to do something, and when you declare in an official legal document that you have, in fact, done what you had an obligation to do, well, the fact that you didn't do what you had an obligation to do and hadn't actually verified that you had before you made the legal declaration has consequences.
Re:A little too late Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
If you fine a company because of a bug in their software this is really not understanding how software development works.
If you don't, then it is really not understanding how companies work, or the law.
If you went over the speed limit, then you went over the speed limit. Nobody cares why, if it was intentional or if you didn't look at the speedometer. It is your responsibility to not go over the speed limit, and if you did it by mistake then too bad - your mistake, your ticket.
Same here. Their mistake, their ticket. It really is as simple as that.
If you deviate from that legal principle by a single inch, then everyone will start to claim "it was a software bug" for everything, because that is how lawyers work - they always include every possible defense that has the slightest chance of being successful.
Fining them is 100% the correct decision, absolutely no doubt about that.