Whilst I agree that there must be fair legislation with regard to anticompetitive practices, it may appear that the European Union has gone over the top in its latest antitrust probe against Microsoft: -

From Computer Buyer Magazine’s website: -

“The European Commission has told Microsoft that it believes the tying of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system infringes EU antitrust laws.

The Commission has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft which outlines its view that the tying of IE to Windows provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. This “harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice”.

It EU executive is also concerned that “the ubiquity of IE creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers”.

Microsoft has eight weeks to reply the SO and will then have the right to an Oral Hearing. If SO findings confirmed, the Commission may impose a fine and require Microsoft to make changes to Windows that would ameliorate the Commission’s concerns.

In a short statement, Microsoft said it was still examining the SO.

“We are committed to conducting our business in full compliance with European law. We are studying the Statement of Objections now.”

The decision to issue the SO is based on legal principles established in the 2007 ruling by the European Court of First Instance, which upheld the Commission’s 2004 finding that Microsoft had abused its dominant position in the PC operating system market by tying Windows Media Player to its operating system.

That judgement saw Microsoft release a special N version of Windows XP without Media Player, which remained available as a free download. The company was also fined and has to date been ordered to pay fines totalling €1.68 billion for this and other antitrust violations.”

This is just too much: It’s no secret that the EU is a corrupt powerbase of political subterfuge and scam-mongering. This appears to be just another attempt to swell the EU coffers even further. Not content in just charging Britain millions of Euros in membership fees so that European politicians can hire call-girls and throw lush parties, the Eurocrats like to have a stab at Microsoft from time to time; as Microsoft is where the money is. In early 2008, Microsoft was fined 899m Euros by the European Commission for anti-competitive behaviour over bundling in the Windows Media Player and browser into Windows. As if that wasn’t enough loot for them, they’ve decided to have a second snipe and see if they can get some more out of the software giant.

Now this is rather ancient news from Computer Buyer; as on the 16th June I reported on this in the article “Europe Doesn’t want IE8”, and I also reported Microsoft’s solution to the problem: -

“In order to comply with European competition law, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 will be removed from the European versions of Windows 7. Microsoft made the decision to drop the web browser in order to stay on the right side of the European Commission and avoid further possible fines. Versions of Windows 7 released in Europe will have an E suffix to show that they are European versions that don’t include Internet Explorer.”

- So if they don’t include IE then what browser do they include?

Internet Explorer is a fundamental software component of the Windows operating system; and it goes a lot deeper than just the browser GUI that IE users see. Without IE, there is, in all reality, no Windows as such. Without IE there are just a number of disjointed codes resembling an incomplete operating system. Conversely, Windows Media Player is more an app than an integral part of Windows.

This becomes puzzling now: How, if there’s no browser, does the customer add a browser so that they can download anything? ‘Beats me!

According to the BBC Website, in an article from 12th June 2009: -

"In terms of potential remedies, if the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all," said the Commission in a statement responding to Microsoft’s announcement.

It said Microsoft’s approach of offering the program to computer manufacturers "may potentially be more positive" in terms of remedying its alleged abusive behaviour.”

-Which still doesn’t really answer the question. – I mean if I were to buy a copy of Windows 7 E, post RTM, to install on a computer that I just built: OK I’ve installed it. How do I get a browser onto it? There is no browser. – No wait; I have a choice of browser? – If the EU have their way then yes. OK; I’ll install FireFox. Is that how it’s going to be? That would actually be rather good.

- The Eurocrats are targeting the IE GUI itself perhaps; and maybe they have a point: If the IE GUI is supplied along with Windows then it gives the IE browser an unfair advantage in a way; because many computer users aren’t geeks. -  In fact many (European) computer users are rather clueless when it comes to computers. – Other than instant messaging, browsing to find their family tree, and email, they really don’t have much idea of anything else that the internet has to offer. (I know, it’s a bit of a wild assertion; but if a lot of British users are anything to go by then it’s true.) – Therefore, when they buy the Windows operating system from Microsoft they stick it on their computer as is, if it isn’t preinstalled, and they use it as is: Sucky browser, the lot. Possibly half of them aren’t even aware that there’s an alternative to IE. The other half may have heard of FireFox, Opera, Safari… But are of the attitude: “If it works; why fix it?”

…But Microsoft have even included a function in Windows 7 to deactivate IE – The GUI bit, that is, for people who don’t want IE on their computer at all, even though they run Windows, as a primary or secondary OS. (Linux users come to mind.) Nevertheless the non-nerdy users probably won’t bother to deactivate IE and choose an alternative browser.

So what are the choices? Supply Windows with another browser? That’ll give the new browser an unfair advantage no matter which browser they use; although the Eurocrats may have problems getting any money out of Microsoft for promoting another company’s browser. – But Microsoft themselves probably wouldn’t be too happy about promoting someone else’s product.

What if they supplied Windows with no browser and let the customer make up their own mind which one to install? – The problem then would be that the customer has absolutely no way of downloading any software whatsoever: No browser = no browsing = no downloads.

Email a browser to the customer. – Yeah right. As soon as the malware distributors hear of that they’ll spoof the email and get everyone to download tons of malware into a blind operating system. Forget that straight away: It’s a definite non-starter.

The only option left, then, is to include a copy of every browser available that works with Windows on the installation disc, and let the customer choose which one is to be used from the offing as the operating system installs. As I said before; that appears to be how it’s going to work; but we might have to wait until the RTM to know for certain.

What do you think?

P.S. The next EU antitrust suite against Microsoft will probably be targeting Windows Live Mail, or maybe even Windows itself: -

“The European Commission has told Microsoft that it believes the tying of Microsoft’s Windows operating system with its range of Windows operating systems infringes EU antitrust laws.” 

– The Eurocrats have got to find enough money to continue to live in the lap of luxury somehow. – Those call-girls cost quite a bit!