Microsoft Statement on EU Browser Choice Screen Compliance

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Under a December 2009 decision of the European Commission, Microsoft is required to display a “Browser Choice Screen” (BCS) on Windows PCs in Europe where Internet Explorer is the default browser.


We have fallen short in our responsibility to do this. Due to a technical error, we missed delivering the BCS software to PCs that came with the service pack 1 update to Windows 7. The BCS software has been delivered as it should have been to PCs running the original version of Windows 7, as well as the relevant versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista. However, while we believed when we filed our most recent compliance report in December 2011 that we were distributing the BCS software to all relevant PCs as required, we learned recently that we’ve missed serving the BCS software to the roughly 28 million PCs running Windows 7 SP1.


While we have taken immediate steps to remedy this problem, we deeply regret that this error occurred and we apologize for it.
 
God, talk about a nanny state, why should MS have to "give you" a choice you can already make for yourself?
 
Most government agencies engage in some degree of "nannyism" to keep their herds of human cattle safe from themselves.
 
Must be a sad thing to be a part of the EU - where you can't even manage to decide what BROWSER to use on a computer all by yourself, without a guvment mandated prompt screen.

I decide on browser, video player, image viewer, email, video editing, and a variety of support programs ALL BY MYSELF.

And if the computer comes with something on it I don't want (when I didn't built it myself) - I UNINSTALL IT. Or in the case of IE I just ignore it. Keep it up to date, just in case.

How many people are like me?? How many in the EU???
 
"I Forgot" never worked for me. This is hilarious.
 
It is really just about the EU extorting money from companies to try and keep all their failing countries afloat. The EU comes up with some stupid "monopoly" argument, fines the companies and then puts requirements on them that can't easily be met, then fines them more money when they miss the deadline. It's going to be real funny when all these companies decide that doing business there isn't worth the trouble and pull out.
 
God, talk about a nanny state, why should MS have to "give you" a choice you can already make for yourself?

Wouldn't a nanny state be handing a browser to users without letting them make any decisions or choices, such as making Internet Explorer the default?

This isn't nanny state, but regulations.
 
A nanny state is BUILT on regulations. Do this, don't do that. We know better so do as we say. Doesn't matter what YOU like, you have to do it OUR way.

It's just a matter of degree, and it's impossible to draw the line where it will make everyone happy.
 
A nanny state is BUILT on regulations. Do this, don't do that. We know better so do as we say. Doesn't matter what YOU like, you have to do it OUR way.

It's just a matter of degree, and it's impossible to draw the line where it will make everyone happy.

If you don't like regulations then move to Somalia :-P
 
Must be a sad thing to be a part of the EU - where you can't even manage to decide what BROWSER to use on a computer all by yourself, without a guvment mandated prompt screen.

I decide on browser, video player, image viewer, email, video editing, and a variety of support programs ALL BY MYSELF.

And if the computer comes with something on it I don't want (when I didn't built it myself) - I UNINSTALL IT. Or in the case of IE I just ignore it. Keep it up to date, just in case.

How many people are like me?? How many in the EU???

Yeah, I much prefer being a part of a union which doesn't follow its own laws, such as fair use or double-dipping; where huge, politically connected companies are given billions when they start to collapse under their own weight; a place which allows octogenarians to continue driving well past their ability to do so safely, simply because they're the main voters; somewhere you can sue the store because the hot, steaming coffee you spilled on yourself actually burned you; a country where copyright is allowed to be enforced through extortion, threats, and public humiliation. I also prefer being told what kind of discipline I can dish out to my children. Additionally, I like being told who can and cannot spend time with my children. I even enjoy having only one option for certain services, such as internet or TV. Finally, I'm really looking forward to being told what kind of health care I must purchase.

Yep, this is the perfect country. Now, I'm thinking something about stones and glass houses...
 
Wouldn't a nanny state be handing a browser to users without letting them make any decisions or choices, such as making Internet Explorer the default?

This isn't nanny state, but regulations.

In effect they are requiring MS to hand you the browsers because the nanny state can't expect you to take care of that all by yourself.
 
Yeah, I much prefer being a part of a union which doesn't follow its own laws, such as fair use or double-dipping; where huge, politically connected companies are given billions when they start to collapse under their own weight;
Everywhere is like this. Take off the blinders.

a place which allows octogenarians to continue driving well past their ability to do so safely, simply because they're the main voters;
Now you understand one of the many flaws of democracy.

somewhere you can sue the store because the hot, steaming coffee you spilled on yourself actually burned you;
People commonly quote this without understanding the full story. The coffee was near boiling temperatures, WELL beyond safety guidelines and local food/service laws. The individual suffered third degree (deep tissue) burns. This was no simple "hot coffee" on the lap, with a bit of redness and pain, this was a SERIOUS injury. Ive a minor third degree burn once...it sucked...badly.


a country where copyright is allowed to be enforced through extortion, threats, and public humiliation.
Very true.

I also prefer being told what kind of discipline I can dish out to my children. Additionally, I like being told who can and cannot spend time with my children.
Explain please.

I even enjoy having only one option for certain services, such as internet or TV.
You live in the sticks, or what?

Finally, I'm really looking forward to being told what kind of health care I must purchase.
An excellent point, very nanny-state-ish. Blame the left, who thinks even the morbidly obese and chain smoking/alcoholic douchebags deserve top of the line health care.

Yep, this is the perfect country. Now, I'm thinking something about stones and glass houses...
No ask yourself seriously, are any of those points you made, at the same scale of what the original article is about?
 
Yeah, I much prefer being a part of a union which doesn't follow its own laws, such as fair use or double-dipping; where huge, politically connected companies are given billions when they start to collapse under their own weight; a place which allows octogenarians to continue driving well past their ability to do so safely, simply because they're the main voters; somewhere you can sue the store because the hot, steaming coffee you spilled on yourself actually burned you; a country where copyright is allowed to be enforced through extortion, threats, and public humiliation. I also prefer being told what kind of discipline I can dish out to my children. Additionally, I like being told who can and cannot spend time with my children. I even enjoy having only one option for certain services, such as internet or TV. Finally, I'm really looking forward to being told what kind of health care I must purchase.

Yep, this is the perfect country. Now, I'm thinking something about stones and glass houses...

I bet you support Ron Paul.
 
God, talk about a nanny state, why should MS have to "give you" a choice you can already make for yourself?

The argument is that by making IE the default browser, most users who are not tech savvy are just going to stick with it.

Thus they are using their operating system market dominance to unduly influence peoples browser choices in a way that looks like unfair business practices.

I agree with the decision. For the sheeple, the first time they fire on their computers, there should be a CHOICE, not a pre-installed option that you have to dig into the options that most people don't understand in order to change.

Remember, this decision has nothing to do with protecting their consumers, but rather it is protecting their competitors from anti-competitive behavior. When a company uses their market domainance in one segment to force themselves into another, and push competitors out, it really is a direct violation of Monopoly laws.

I say Bravo Europe.

Next, Let's see something like this when it comes to search engine choice. don't let them make Bing the default in MSIE, but rather, prompt the user the first time the browser runs, and ask them what they would like their default search engine to be.
 
I've just never been able to comprehend the problem. I just bought a pre-built computer that runs Microsoft Windows - and WOAH - it has INTERNET EXPLORER on it. And no other browser. I am shocked! Just SHOCKED!

And people who don't KNOW there are other browsers probably couldn't care less either.
 
Must be a sad thing to be a part of the EU - where you can't even manage to decide what BROWSER to use on a computer all by yourself, without a guvment mandated prompt screen.

I decide on browser, video player, image viewer, email, video editing, and a variety of support programs ALL BY MYSELF.

And if the computer comes with something on it I don't want (when I didn't built it myself) - I UNINSTALL IT. Or in the case of IE I just ignore it. Keep it up to date, just in case.

How many people are like me?? How many in the EU???

Again, the EU is not protecting the consumer.

They are protecting the browser competition from Microsofts monopolistic attempts to use their dominance in operating systems to steer people towards also using their browser.

I think its a great idea, and probably should happen here in the U.S. too, as what Microsoft are doing is - from my understanding - a violation of existing Antitrust law under the Sherman Act of 1890.

remember free markets (Captialism) depend on there being competition, and competition can only exist when the markets are fair. Monopolies and the use of monopolistic powers corrupt these markets and cause Capitalism to fail.

Monopolies (or near Monopolies) are not illegal in and of themselves, but using the market dominance resulting from a monopoly or near monopoly to gain further benefit, and damage other competitors in the process IS Illegal, and that is what Microsoft is doing by not giving users who don't have enough tech skills to change their default configurations and easy option to switch to alternatives. Even if the options were easy, it still may violate Anti Trust law due to it being the default and not a choice. (people are lazy and tend to go with defaults).

By forcing Microsoft to make the browser an easy choice, and not just making it a default Europe is limiting its ability to use theory dominance in the OS marketplace to unfairly hurt the browser competition. I think this is what they SHOULD be doing, and we should be doing it here too.

Again, same thing with Bing. Upon launching IE for the first time, there should be a dialogue asking you for your preference of default search engine, not just making it Bing off the bat.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038945044 said:
The argument is that by making IE the default browser, most users who are not tech savvy are just going to stick with it.

Thus they are using their operating system market dominance to unduly influence peoples browser choices in a way that looks like unfair business practices.

I agree with the decision. For the sheeple, the first time they fire on their computers, there should be a CHOICE, not a pre-installed option that you have to dig into the options that most people don't understand in order to change.

Remember, this decision has nothing to do with protecting their consumers, but rather it is protecting their competitors from anti-competitive behavior. When a company uses their market domainance in one segment to force themselves into another, and push competitors out, it really is a direct violation of Monopoly laws.

I say Bravo Europe.

Next, Let's see something like this when it comes to search engine choice. don't let them make Bing the default in MSIE, but rather, prompt the user the first time the browser runs, and ask them what they would like their default search engine to be.

Doesn't Microsoft embed IE into the NT kernel so even if one tried to uninstall it, I'd still be there?
 
what happened with the old Windows that they had to strip internet explorer out of.
How are the customers that bought that version supposed to go online and find a browser to use?
MS had to make a SKU and market that version and I don't think any copies sold.
And you can't make it cheaper since that would imply that MS is charging for IE, so no one in their right mind would purchase it.
 
They give their browser away for free. Just like Firefox and all the others I know of right now. You can install and run any browser you want, and making the new browser the default one has never taken me more than, what, 2 clicks? (Check the box and click YES). The ONLY time I see IE on any PC of mine is when I run Windows Update.

Powerful monopoly they got going there. Powerful indeed.
 
They give their browser away for free. Just like Firefox and all the others I know of right now. You can install and run any browser you want, and making the new browser the default one has never taken me more than, what, 2 clicks? (Check the box and click YES). The ONLY time I see IE on any PC of mine is when I run Windows Update.

Powerful monopoly they got going there. Powerful indeed.

When you run Windows Update? Stuck with XP, aren't you?
 
Zarathustra[H];1038945044 said:
The argument is that by making IE the default browser, most users who are not tech savvy are just going to stick with it.

Thus they are using their operating system market dominance to unduly influence peoples browser choices in a way that looks like unfair business practices.

I agree with the decision. For the sheeple, the first time they fire on their computers, there should be a CHOICE, not a pre-installed option that you have to dig into the options that most people don't understand in order to change.

Remember, this decision has nothing to do with protecting their consumers, but rather it is protecting their competitors from anti-competitive behavior. When a company uses their market domainance in one segment to force themselves into another, and push competitors out, it really is a direct violation of Monopoly laws.

I say Bravo Europe.

Next, Let's see something like this when it comes to search engine choice. don't let them make Bing the default in MSIE, but rather, prompt the user the first time the browser runs, and ask them what they would like their default search engine to be.

Ding ding ding! Someone finally understands whats really going on here.

MS is using is dominant position in the OS market to reduce competition in the browser market, which clearly violates anti-trust law. The EU, unlike the US, was actually willing to enforce the laws on its own books.
 
Ding ding ding! Someone finally understands whats really going on here.

MS is using is dominant position in the OS market to reduce competition in the browser market, which clearly violates anti-trust law. The EU, unlike the US, was actually willing to enforce the laws on its own books.

So because people are too stupid to change their browser, that somehow translates into "Microsoft is abusing monopoly power."

Abuse of a monopolistic position is about REDUCING consumer choices to their direct detriment. Monopolies, by definition reduce consumer choices. [You cannot buy any oil but Standard Oil]. Consumers who only use IE don't suffer harm...Microsoft is not harming them. Its also NOT preventing the user from making a choice and getting another browser. The fact that Microsoft doesn't FORCE the users to make a browser choice is NOT a monopoly. That anyone would believe this in incomprehensible to me.

This fundamental philosophical difference in opinion is why some people see this as nanny-state gone too far. Poor computer users, too stupid to install another browser, must force them to do it even though they are not being harmed!
 
Poor computer users, too stupid to install another browser, must force them to do it even though they are not being harmed!

Nobody is being forced to install other browsers. You either don't understand the decision or are purposely mischaracterizing it.
 
So because people are too stupid to change their browser, that somehow translates into "Microsoft is abusing monopoly power."

It really doesn't matter if its because the users are "too stupid"

(which is kind of insulting. Not everyone is an expert on computers just because you and I are. There are many people who have expertise in other areas that you don't. Does that make you stupid?)

The result is what matters.

Microsoft includes something (search engine/browser/whatever) as default -> users don't know to change the default (before, if it weren't included they may have asked a friend but now they are just OK with it, cause it works) -> competitors see a dwindling user base -> competitors go out of business or drop out of the market -> The market stagnates, and prices become higher due to lack of competition.

So it doesn't really matter if its because the "users are stupid" or not. What matters is that the behavior results in stagnation and price gouging, something that is damaging to the market, reduces in competition, and even damages capitalism and society as a whole.

The negative impact is so large that measures like these ARE important. That's why the Sherman Act was enacted in the 1890's in the first place.

Europe is enforcing their antitrust legislation. We aren't. If we as Americans care about our capitalistic system as much as we say we do, we ought to enforce ours as well!
 
Zarathustra[H];1038945405 said:
It really doesn't matter if its because the users are "too stupid"

(which is kind of insulting. Not everyone is an expert on computers just because you and I are. There are many people who have expertise in other areas that you don't. Does that make you stupid?)
If I am being harmed by a situation, I am smart enough to research other choices.


Microsoft includes something (search engine/browser/whatever) as default -> users don't know to change the default (before, if it weren't included they may have asked a friend but now they are just OK with it, cause it works) ->
Explain how the consumer is harmed by this.

competitors see a dwindling user base -> competitors go out of business or drop out of the market -> The market stagnates, and prices become higher due to lack of competition.
So this is about protecting competitors, not consumers. Think about that for a minute. Why is it Microsofts job to protect competitors who have products some people dont want?

So it doesn't really matter if its because the "users are stupid" or not. What matters is that the behavior results in stagnation and price gouging, something that is damaging to the market, reduces in competition, and even damages capitalism and society as a whole.
Price gouging for a free browser? Please. Stagnation? When have we only had IE as a browser choice? Oh right, never.

The negative impact is so large that measures like these ARE important. That's why the Sherman Act was enacted in the 1890's in the first place.
What negative act has IE being the default browser caused the consumer? Back it up with data and facts.

Europe is enforcing their antitrust legislation. We aren't. If we as Americans care about our capitalistic system as much as we say we do, we ought to enforce ours as well!
In the case of IE being the default browser being abuse of monopoly power, has yet to be proven to me. WHO EXACTLY has been harmed by this?

The EU seems to be operating under the influence of FEAR, not actual harm.
 
So, why should we stop at browsers? Why not themes and screensavers, afterall some people have actually paid for some of them over the last 15 years, unlike browsers.
 
Ding ding ding! Someone finally understands whats really going on here.

MS is using is dominant position in the OS market to reduce competition in the browser market, which clearly violates anti-trust law. The EU, unlike the US, was actually willing to enforce the laws on its own books.

well then shouldn't the computer manufactures take some heat for this as well because I know they can change the browser and various software kinda like sony does they have chrome on their computers.
 
I think that the Windows file browser is an unfair monopoly over 3rd party file browsers. I really hope the EU does something about this!
 
This doesn't make sense to me why isn't microsoft also getting sued for their WM player and all of their other prebundled ultilties/software as well?
 
If I am being harmed by a situation, I am smart enough to research other choices.

Explain how the consumer is harmed by this.


The harm is not direct to the customer, but rather long term harm to the market in which the customer operates.

So this is about protecting competitors, not consumers.

yes and no. Short term it is protecting competitors from unfair business practises, which is nice, but not the main point. Long term it is protecting everyone - customers, businesses, etc. from damage to the market.

Think about that for a minute. Why is it Microsofts job to protect competitors who have products some people dont want?

It's not their job to protect competitors. It is - however - their job to compete fairly. By installing something - anything - of theirs as a default choice in their operating system, when there are alternatives, this is unfair competition as they are using their OS market dominance to brute force their way into other markets. and thus anti-competetive practises, which are illegal.

Price gouging for a free browser? Please. Stagnation? When have we only had IE as a browser choice? Oh right, never.

I was talking about markets in general, not specifically browsers. It does stagnate development though. Remember how horrible IE5 and IE6 were? This is the aftermath of when they were crushing all of the competition due to their unfair practices. again, it doesn't matter if there is another choice out there, if Microsoft is using their OS dominance to funnel the majority of users into their own product, even if some (like us) still switch browsers, the other projects may become not worth pursuing for such a small user base and disappear, or just stagnate as well.

What negative act has IE being the default browser caused the consumer? Back it up with data and facts.

Remember what happened to Netscape? It was the best browser on the market, but users declined due to Microsoft's unfair business practices, and with it did the funds to keep the browser up to date, making the company go under and be sold off.

In the case of IE being the default browser being abuse of monopoly power, has yet to be proven to me. WHO EXACTLY has been harmed by this?

We all have. If the DOJ and Europe hand't settled with Microsoft the last time around, we'd all still be on IE6, and there wouldn't be any alternatives out there, because with only the tiny enthusiast crowd switching browsers there wouldn't be the userbase to support alternate projects, free or no.

The EU seems to be operating under the influence of FEAR, not actual harm.

That's exactly how Anti-Trust laws are supposed to work. If you wait for the damage to occur, it's irreparable and too late, unless you want to resort to AT&T style breakups.

Either way, it really doesn't matter which way you argue. It's law. It's been on the books since the 1890's (but into place by a Republican majority). As such it should be enforced.

Your argument may have been interesting in 1890, but today it is pointless. Anti-trust is the law of the land, and its usefulness does not need to be argued on a case by case basis, as we have hundreds of years of data to prove that when monopolistic powers are used to gain an advantage it is always bad for the consumer, always bad for business and always bad for society.
 
If I am being harmed by a situation, I am smart enough to research other choices.

And many people aren't. Good job being in the top .0001% though.

Explain how the consumer is harmed by this.

Fast forward a decade, when MS decides to separate IE from the OS, and offer it as a standalone, paid program that costs $10. Woops, I guess I'll just use another...wait, no alternative browsers? BUT I WANT MY INTERNETS!!!

So this is about protecting competitors, not consumers. Think about that for a minute. Why is it Microsofts job to protect competitors who have products some people dont want?

No, its Microsofts job to not use its dominant position in the OS market to become a de-facto leader in the browser market. Which is what they do by packaging IE in with the OS. The fact IE could not be safley removed from the OS prior to Windows 7 was a clear violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, and was a key point, if not THE key point in the MS Monopoly trial in the early 2000's.

Price gouging for a free browser? Please. Stagnation? When have we only had IE as a browser choice? Oh right, never.

And what happens when MS decides that IE should be a paid service? People pay for XBL for crying out loud!

What negative act has IE being the default browser caused the consumer? Back it up with data and facts.

*)Netscape Navigator loosing the browser war, due in large part to IE being pre-installed.
*)Websites coded using extensions that only IE can use, creating websites that do not render properly on any other browser, farther fueling adoption of IE as the default browser
*)IE is closely integerated into the OS, so removal of IE prevents parts of the OS dependent on IE libraries from working
*)IE is closely tied to the OS, leading to major vunerabilities through the IE browser [*cough*ActiveX*cough*]

In the case of IE being the default browser being abuse of monopoly power, has yet to be proven to me. WHO EXACTLY has been harmed by this?

Netscape Communications. Enough said.

The EU seems to be operating under the influence of FEAR, not actual harm.

No, the EU is simply enforcing its laws. Imagine that, a countries government doing their jobs. What a concept...
 
So, why should we stop at browsers? Why not themes and screensavers, afterall some people have actually paid for some of them over the last 15 years, unlike browsers.
Because Opera Software doesn't have any reason to whine and bitch about themes and screensavers :)
 
Fast forward a decade, when MS decides to separate IE from the OS, and offer it as a standalone, paid program that costs $10. Woops, I guess I'll just use another...wait, no alternative browsers?
I wasn't aware that we had entered the age of Future Crime and Minority Reports.
 
And many people aren't. Good job being in the top .0001% though.
Our species is doomed.

Fast forward a decade, when MS decides to separate IE from the OS, and offer it as a standalone, paid program that costs $10. Woops, I guess I'll just use another...wait, no alternative browsers? BUT I WANT MY INTERNETS!!!
We are going to punish Microsoft because they might do bad things in the future. Childish.

No, its Microsofts job to not use its dominant position in the OS market to become a de-facto leader in the browser market. Which is what they do by packaging IE in with the OS. The fact IE could not be safley removed from the OS prior to Windows 7 was a clear violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, and was a key point, if not THE key point in the MS Monopoly trial in the early 2000's.
Yeah, evil Microsoft, including a critical function in their OS, like a browser, a file explorer, a notepad, built-in anti-virus. SO EVIL.

And what happens when MS decides that IE should be a paid service? People pay for XBL for crying out loud!
Then people can choose a free browser alternative. CHOICE. People pay for XBL because apparently they think its worth paying for. Is Sony evil because they dont let Xbox's connect to the playstation network?

*)Netscape Navigator loosing the browser war, due in large part to IE being pre-installed.
Netscape lost the war because it was a piece of shit.

*)Websites coded using extensions that only IE can use, creating websites that do not render properly on any other browser, farther fueling adoption of IE as the default browser
Yep, thats Microsoft's fault, using mind-control technology to force website developers to do bad coding.

*)IE is closely integerated into the OS, so removal of IE prevents parts of the OS dependent on IE libraries from working
A smei-valid point, but one could argue just dont use the damn thing. Install another browser, and use that.

*)IE is closely tied to the OS, leading to major vunerabilities through the IE browser [*cough*ActiveX*cough*]
Not relevant to the discussion.

Netscape Communications. Enough said.
What about them? They sucked, and lost the battle. Adobe flash is on its way out too. Whose fault is that? Who weeps for flash?

No, the EU is simply enforcing its laws. Imagine that, a countries government doing their jobs. What a concept...
This not about them enforcing the law, this about the law being fucking stupid.
 
Our species is doomed.

Probably :D

We are going to punish Microsoft because they might do bad things in the future. Childish.

The point of Anti-Trust law is to prevent Anti-Competitive behavior, because of the VERY long history of business robbing consumers blind when there is little to no competition.

But hey, I'm sure if Comcast brought every ISP out, they NEVER would count bandwidth usage differently if you connected to their networks rather then Netflix...

Yeah, evil Microsoft, including a critical function in their OS, like a browser, a file explorer, a notepad, built-in anti-virus. SO EVIL.

A web browser is NOT a critical OS function. Useful yes, but not critical. Neither is notepad/wordpad quite frankly, but at least the users are free to remove them from the host OS if they choose. MSE isn't pre-installed to the OS, so isn't relevent to this discussion. Only windows explorer is a critical OS function in my mind.

Then people can choose a free browser alternative. CHOICE. People pay for XBL because apparently they think its worth paying for. Is Sony evil because they dont let Xbox's connect to the playstation network?

But Anti-Trust law is NOT about choice, which you fail to grasp. Its about competition. Competition you assume will continue to exist despite unlawful market dominance.

After Netscape failed, guess how many browser choices users had? NONE. It wasn't until firefox was developed that there was a viable alternative on the market. And even that had issues due to the before mentioned use of IE only extensioned, which eliminated the choice for many users.

Netscape lost the war because it was a piece of shit.

Netscape lost the war because IE, given away for free with Windows, ate away its market share. This dried up the funding needing to improve Netscape.

Yep, thats Microsoft's fault, using mind-control technology to force website developers to do bad coding.

No, its the effect of lack of competition on the market, which has the side effect of farther solidifying Microsofts hold on the browser market. How many people tried and ditched Firefox over the years because one website or another couldn't open properly in the browser?

A smei-valid point, but one could argue just dont use the damn thing. Install another browser, and use that.

Again, you assume another viable browser currently exists on the market.

Not relevant to the discussion.

Yes it is. Its a direct downside of having IE tied directly to the OS.

What about them? They sucked, and lost the battle. Adobe flash is on its way out too. Whose fault is that? Who weeps for flash?

Flash lost because its a piece of junk, and was outcompeted on the market. Thats the point: Free competition, something MS didn't do with IE.

This not about them enforcing the law, this about the law being fucking stupid.

No, its about ensuring the marketplace doesn't break due to lack of competition, which is seems you assume will always exist. You do NOT have the right to selectively enforce the law.
 
Back
Top