11 May 2009
Microsoft has argued that forcing it to bundle rival browsers with its Windows operating system will make Google even more dominant in the search market.
The software giant made the appeal in a last-minute submission to the European Commission (EC) anti-trust case that will be heard in June.
The EC has been investigating the effects of Microsoft tying Internet Explorer into Windows, which makes the browser available on 90 per cent of the world's PCs.
A complaint to the EC lodged in December 2007 by browser developer Opera argued that Microsoft had harmed competition in its market, and was threatening innovation. Opera's case has since been backed by some of Microsoft's biggest rivals, including Google and Mozilla.
The EC sent a statement of objections to Microsoft on 15 January outlining its preliminary view that the software company is infringing on European anti-trust legislation.
If the view is confirmed, the EC may impose a fine or require Microsoft to stop tying Internet Explorer to Windows in all current and future versions of the operating system. Under the ruling, Microsoft would be required to support Google's Chrome browser, and others such as Opera and Firefox, all of which have home pages set automatically to default to Google's search engine.
In response, Microsoft was reported to have filed an extra submission to the EC arguing against giving more power to Google. Microsoft's latest submission was seen by The Financial Times, and confirmed to The New York Times by sources claiming to have knowledge of Microsoft's legal strategy.
"All we can say is that we study carefully all the arguments that are set out by Microsoft in their reply to our statement of objectives," said an EC spokeswoman.
Meanwhile, Google has launched TV adverts in the US and elsewhere to try to promote its Chrome browser.
Latest stories from Web
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
X2 PMO lead, Investment Banking, London up to £495 per...
SEO analyst - Retail E-commerce - c35-55k - Hertfordshire...
ICT Technician Leicester £10,000 per annum...
Oracle Performance Tuning, Oracle, Tuning, Engineering...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
unfair to who?
i just think microsoft should quit crying and bitch to some who cares because i and a lot of other people dont really give a crap.
Posted by: steven r. may 17 May 2009
Who pays Google's programmers ?
The idea that Google or free browsers like Opera and Mozilla are free and therefore must be better is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, they are not free. Yes they are paid for by advertisers, but who's money are advertisers spending ? The only money advertisers are spending is yours and mine through the higher product prices we pay to cover the marketing costs. Secondly, if the desire appears to be to destroy Microsoft and therefore Internet Explorer then it reduces the choice not increases or are my maths wrong. If we have five major browsers now (IE, Mozilla, Safari, Opera and Chrome) and we reduce it to four then that sounds like less choice. Thirdly, what are the EU and there followers proposing. The Microsoft aren't allowed to ship Internet Explorer with Windows (any name and number) ? So I switch on my new PC and connect to the internet. Oh hang on what do I use to make that first connection? I know lets make Microsoft put every manufacturers browser bundled with Windows. So who gets to make the choice about which ones they have to bundle? Say they have to include the top 5? Do they have to make them of the same prominence? Who's icon do they put first on the screen, IE or Mozilla etc? Will these moaners sue if they aren't first or the icon isn't as big, do I need to go on? Fourthly, the whole premiss of this case is that Microsoft have an unfair advantage because of the tie in to the OS doesn't ring true. Does this mean that all the browser producers are admitting that there browsers are inferior, slower, less capable than Internet Explorer? Surely the users decide, if they cannot be bothered to connect to Mozilla's or Chrome's website and press a download button now what makes anyone think they will do so if they are forced to do this because in the EU we are forced to have no browser with the PC.
Posted by: Chris Crofts 15 May 2009
Oooooooh it's not fair!
Please don't let Google stay in charge of the net. They're bad! BAD, BAD, BAD I tell you. Hate, hate, vomit! Poor little Microsoft is being punished by Google & it's not fair (tears run down Steve "I'm gonna f#@&ing kill Google" Ballmer's face). We've been taken to court & so should they. They're killing our operating system & our office software. They're SCUM I tell you, SCUM! Oooooooh hate, hate, vomit! Sucked in M$, how I love Google!
Posted by: Rex Alfie Lee 14 May 2009
Time-Wasting Ploys of M$
This is just another of M$'s time-wasting ploys. While there may be some truth in it who cares what happens to M$? They have a few hundred billion tucked away for a rainy day & finally those days are coming. This company deserves to be smothered. Their outright bullying, manipulation, loading of committees & abuse of available anonymity to misrepresent others in powerful positions shows them to be what they are; SCUM! Take them for a trillion EU, I'll laugh for a week. Screw them to the wall & make them repay every small company they have purposely debunked or cheated. Go to Gaol Steve. Go Directly to Gaol & do not pass GO, you dancing dipstick.
Posted by: Rex Alfie Lee 14 May 2009
Reply to A Weaver
Mr. Weaver - your argument is hillarious. "Google provide me with a free service. Microsoft charge a lot for Windows". You are comparing Apples to Oranges! One is a search engine while the other is an Operating system (just it case it hasnt dawned on you yet). Search engines are free because their business model is to make money via advertising - Yahoo is free and so is Live search. And yes, based on your "excellent" understanding of the technology space (as is apparent from your intelligent post) I guess we must all trust your wonderful analysis of Win7. Lets ignore all the loads of happy customers who tried Win7 and are happy. After all Mr A Weaver has spoken so it must be true. Your statement "Microsoft is the computer users problem at the moment, Not Microsoft." is even more ambiguous. Is Microsoft the user's problem or NOT? I would guess it is the latter.... The actual problem is people like you - who are biased and believe in spreading misinformation that is hinged on this bias.
Posted by: VS 13 May 2009
Micro$oft
Are a joke, they have 90% of the browsers maket they may also have 90% of the OS people use around the world and they say that google will have to much power. Now that's a joke move to unix / lunix and free software :0
Posted by: Wizard 12 May 2009
Google isn't the users problem.
Microsoft is the computer users problem at the moment, Not Microsoft. Every time I change as much as a DVD drive on my PC it has to be reactivated. Google provide me with a free service. Microsoft charge a lot for Windows and then they accuses you of cheating with their WGA every time you make a change. Vista is terrible to use, and my the tests I have done on Windows 7 Beta show it up to be Vista in a poor disguise. Just an attempt to sell the unpopular Vista By changing its name. If giving Google more power takes it away from Microsoft then lets do it.
Posted by: A Weaver 12 May 2009
Deja vu?
Haven't we been down this road before? Anybody still remember the great "browser war" beween Microsoft and Netscape? Anybody still remember Netscape Navigator?
Posted by: Grunt 12 May 2009