4 ms·

There is a huge difference here; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. The problem was that MSFT threatened to withdraw OEM licensing for companies t

• jasode 6y ago
  >; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE. Here is a relevant 1998 excerpt[1] from DOJ's own official website: >The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would: >-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will have a real choice. Computer manufacturers would have the option of deleting either browser. If Microsoft does not want to include Netscape, it must unbundle its own browser and let it compete on the merits. As we now know from the 2001 final settlement, the above scenario didn't happen and Microsoft won that IE battle. Can one do a mental search & replace with s/Microsoft/Apple/ and s/Netscape/Epic/ such as: "Require that if Apple insists on including its App Store on iPhones, it must also include Epic App Store so that consumers will have a real choice." If Epic's lawyers (not even the intimidating government DOJ lawyers this time but just a private video game company's lawyers) want to argue the same idea as forcing Netscape onto IE, what would be the new legal argument this time? The previous one failed. EDIT to sbuk's reply about context: your excerpt trying to show context is itself also missing context. That part about PC manufacturers licensing was the past actions that got the DOJ up to that point of hauling them into court. My excerpt was about the DOJ's proposed future remedy (e.g. must unbundle IE) to reduce Microsoft's future monopoly power -- and that didn't happen. See the very next bullet point below your "context": >• Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95. DOJ wanted to stop the future IE bundling to Windows 98. They failed. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/19...
  • romanoderoma 6y ago
    > I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE. Not this again! MS lost the (one of the many) case with the EU regarding Internet Explorer and that's were most of the confusion comes from: what happens in US is hardly relevant for the rest of the World > In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice." > In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe. > On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim which are accessible via BrowserChoice.eu. The automatic nature of the BrowserChoice.eu feature was dropped in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in February 2011 and remained absent for 14 months despite Microsoft reporting that it was still present, subsequently described by Microsoft as a "technical error". As a result, in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million to deter companies from reneging on settlement promises."
  • sbuk 6y ago
    Context. Relevant part from your link: Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system.