This Operatic madness must not succeed

I think you got it wrong.

The EU Commission doesn't hate Microsoft; it's just that antitrust law in the EU is different from what it is in the US. Part of what EU antitrust law is about is that it's forbidden to leverage monopolies of one market into another through abusive practices. Microsoft has a dominant market position in the desktop market, and it bundles a browser with its desktop OS, then makes that browser behave sufficiently differently from standards and other browsers to force (strongly motivate) users to use it over competing products. This, I think, constitutes an "abuse of dominant market position" (not unlike in the case with Samba).

The problem is not only that IE is bundled with Windows; it's also that it doesn't follow standards but "innovates on top of them", as Microsoft would put it. This isn't much of a deal for a browser that doesn't have a dominant market position, because you can just stop using it and use something else. However, if the dominant browser deviates from the standards, web developers (as I'm sure you'd know) start to implement stuff so that it works in IE, and often disregard or expend less effort on support for other browsers. Opera's complaint is partly about this behaviour, and if Microsoft could be forced to adhere to open standards for a change, the world would be a better place not only because it would be easier to create websites but also because the consumer would have _real_ choice (which they currently don't necessarily have, because IE-only sites restrict choice, and IE-only sites exist because IE doesn't follow standards).

It's Embrace, Extend and Extinguish all over again; a standard anticompetitive Microsoft tactic. Take a standard, say, e-mail; then "innovate on top of it" in a proprietary and closed way that is difficult for others to implement and preferably patented; then use the dominant market position in the desktop to push the new "innovation" and thereby stifle competition in a different market segment. This hasn't happened to email yet, but is to some extent happening to the Web (although thankfully it didn't really work, but ActiveX was an attempt to do exactly this).

I suggest you read at least http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070923170905803 which explains the previous ruling by the European Court of First Instance (in the Samba case) in some detail, and maybe also http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071213104023255 which explains the Opera case better than I can.

Thinking about it may be harder than dismissing it all with just "the EU hates Microsoft", but it may be worth it nonetheless. :)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you as well, and at least partially agree with Opera. Unbundling IE would be a great boon for everyone - I've always desired to have an easier method of removing Internet Explorer from Windows, and think it is well in my rights to do so. Forcing a browser onto my system that is integrated with the operating system is an abuse of their power as the maker of both, in my opinion.

I don't, however, think Microsoft should be forced to implement any standards in their browser. Would it be a good idea? Yes, definitely.

Well, the European approach seems to be to not leave it to the market but to take action. Leaving it to the market just doesn't work (this is especially apparent if you look at the history of the telecom markets, where in countries with powerful regulators real competition has emerged or is emerging, whereas in other countries where the regulator has been, shall we say, lenient with the historical monopoly, the market situation is a lot more like it was ten years ago, with users paying more for less). The problem with a monopoly is that because it is a monopoly, it has such control over the market that normal market processes can't eliminate it and corrective action must come from the outside.

About timing: sure, IE has always been a standards whore, and especially during the IE4 days, many sites just didn't work with any other browser as a result of this. Opera isn't brining this action now because they suddenly realized what was going on; I think they're doing it now because the previous case showed them that it's possible to prevail over Microsoft in a European antitrust court.

"How does IE being a dog entice users to keep using it?", you ask, but I think I already told you: by being so widely used that web developers take pains to implement its misfeatures, breaking other browsers in doing so. In 2001 (I think it was in 2001) Microsoft apparently deliberately broke msn.com so that it didn't work with any browser other than IE. This is the essence of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish: make a product that implements a standard but extends it in incompatible, proprietary, undocumented ways, and then offer services that are only accessible with these proprietary features.

Hell, Microsoft even is (or was) a W3C member, so they could have added their extensions to the standards if they wanted, but they didn't. Why, do you think? Because then the other browsers would have worked largely the same way and IE would have been forced to compete on a more or less even playing field. By adding proprietary extensions that the others didn't implement and making sure that some high-profile sites used those extensions, they tried to lock their users into their browser. As I understand it, this practice is illegal in the EU. As the first Halloween memorandum, probably still available from www.opensource.org, puts it: "[Linux] can win while protocols are a commodity. [...] by de-commoditizing protocols, we raise the bar and change the rules of the game. [...] deny entry into the market [...]" (I quote from memory so I can't vouch for accuracy). Change "Linux" to "alternative browsers" and "protocols" to "web standards".

Even if, as you say, it's also the users' fault (it sure is: if nobody bought Microsoft products, there wouldn't be a monopoly), the question whether Microsoft's market behaviour was illegal or not can be asked, and answered by a court. If you shoot me with a firearm I give you, you're just as guilty of murder or at least manslaughter...

Bringing up the issue of the many illegal copies of Windows is a red herring. This isn't about large-scale copyright infringement; it's about anticompetitive behaviour on Microsoft's part, behaviour that caused financial damage to Opera (or so they seem to claim), and which I believe caused an incalculable amount of damage to the world economy at large (think of all the wasted web developer hours). It's also not about making a technical difference in the sense you seem to mean. This isn't legislation, this is litigation: Opera believes Microsoft broke the law and wants the court to enjoin Microsoft from doing it again. If they prevail (which will take years), we'll see if the eventual ruling has any far-reaching consequences that make the world a better place for all; you seem to be saying that if the case were over tomorrow, nothing would immediately change, which makes the case somehow irrelevant. I think you should take a longer perspective: in my opinion, just sending the message that It Is Wrong To Abuse Your Monopoly and driving it home with a hefty fine would be worth it, but actually compelling Microsoft (and, by inference, all major vendors) to adhere to open standards, now, _that_ would really be something.

Unfortunately, I doubt that even if the court ruled this way, Microsoft would comply. They would try to obstruct, stall, delay and so on as we've seen in the Samba case. As far as I know, they still haven't provided the documentation the court ordered them to provide years ago, so they're still in violation, but they haven't paid the fine either...

As for unbundling, I think there is a third way: ship Windows with a minimal HTTP client that can fetch a URL and save/run the file fetched. The start menu could contain a "Download and install web browser" icon where the user is prompted to enter the name of a browser vendor, and the HTTP client would then be used to fetch http://browser.vendor.com/arch_OS_language.msi or something. This could be generalized and extended in many ways, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Ps. please consider using a "fluid" website design. If I enlarge the font enough to make it easy to read, the site starts to fall apart. I also have two wide vertical blue stripes on the sides that contain no useful content. The site utilises less than half my screen's width to display the useful content (the text). I use Firefox; in Opera, "zooming" would sort of work but the bitmaps would become ugly.

About IE's market share going down: that only happened because Microsoft temporarily lost interest in developing and pushing its browser after IE5 I'd say, probably exactly because apparently they had reached their goal and dominated the market (a monopoly isn't motivated to "innovate"). IE6, as I recall, didn't add any "exciting new" proprietary features; I'm not sure about IE7. Had Microsoft continued in the same spirit as before, I believe their market share would still be close to 95% (depending also on how you measure it, of course).

It is still sensible for a court to declare that the anticompetitive behaviour is anticompetitive and to fine Microsoft because:

a) it would hopefully cause them to at least think once, not twice, before doing it again;

b) it would set a precedent (for whatever that's worth) and send the same message to other vendors: Don't Do This;

c) if Microsoft were to do it again, it'd be a second offense which would presumably result in a higher fine;

d) the procedure, methods of proof and so on can be tested and applied with greater ease the next time, which will raise the willingness of other wronged parties to bring suits against Microsoft.

As I already said, I think Opera brought this suit now, years after the offense took place, because the Samba case showed them that there is hope if you persevere.

"Stopping the default installation of IE would not necessarily stop MS (or others) doing exactly the same in the future." -- that's not the intended purpose of unbundling the browser from the OS. Being forced to pay damages and a substantial fine is what's supposed to stop MS from doing something similar again. The purpose of unbundling (which I see as secondary in this case, BTW) is to even the playing field in the sense that users would have to make a choice when they install a browser. Sometimes, choice has to be forced on the consumer to create real competition.

Also, as I already said, if Opera, a browser with a small user base, doesn't follow standards, that's not a big deal; it's not an abuse of market power because there is no market power to abuse. Not following standards is only illegal if someone with significant market power does it, and then only if they do it with the purpose of further expanding their market share or leveraging that significant market power to gain an unfair advantage in a different market. As long as Opera is a niche browser, it can legally disregard standards completely, because all that will accomplish is to hurt their own business. If someone with 70+% market share does it, that's a completely different thing.

The issue that needs fixing is not that all browsers implement the standards in slightly different ways. The issue that needs fixing is that Microsoft is deliberately deviating from (in their words, "innovating on top of") some standards in order to gain an unfair advantage. The court will have to determine whether this has actually taken place and whether it was against the law, but as I understand it, this is the allegation Opera is making and this is what they seek relief from by attempting to have the court compel Microsoft to follow the standards.

About downloading the first browser: there are many technical details that can be implemented in many different ways. I don't think it's worthwhile to go into this here.

However, I believe "educating" a sufficient number of users to make a significant impact on the market isn't feasible. There are too many who want their computer to "just work" (which is of course completely understandable), and if it ships with a default browser, they'll just use that. Because the OS it ships with is mostly Windows (for whatever reason), and Windows ships with IE, they'll use IE - and voila, Microsoft leveraged its dominant market position in the desktop OS market to gain an unfair advantage in a different market: the browser market. If there is no default browser, the user is forced to make a choice, and Microsoft is not automatically at an advantage.

Re: the design - I think content is (or at any rate should be) more important than eye candy, so I'd rather lose the graphics but make the layout fluid. :)

Well you're sort of saying what I'm feeling -- removing IE punishes MS for past mistakes/evils/etc; but it doesn't fix the issue.

No. Removing IE doesn't "punish" MS -- it removes, or at least diminishes Microsoft's ability to leverage its desktop dominance to gain market share in the browser market by unfair means.

What would "punish" MS is if they had to pay damages, which is of course also a possibility. Just because they broke the law a few years ago and are not breaking it this minute doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for past transgressions, if any. If I beat up my neighbour every day for five years, and bully him into not reporting me to the police, then get bored and leave him alone, I can still be punished for my crimes a few years later (probably not indefinitely, but a few years later yes). Why should Microsoft be an exception?

I'm also not sure which "issue" you're talking about here. There are several issues:

• That Microsoft, by bundling a browser with its OS, gains an unfair advantage over competing browser vendors. Removing IE from Windows would fix this issue.
• That Microsoft used to pursue an Embrace, Extend & Extinguish policy with its browsers (granting that this seems to have subsided somewhat). Removing IE from Windows would indirectly help fix this issue, because it would help diminish IE's market share in the long term by forcing it to compete with other products on equal terms.
• That the business of Opera was harmed by Microsoft's alleged unfair practices. Removing IE from Windows in the future obviously can't fix this, but, theoretically, damages can.

IE4 and IE5 were complete both garbage. They were trying to undermine Netscape and any other would-be browsers by forcing developers to cater for just IE and if they wanted other browsers, they had to produce two sites. That was a horrible era of the internet that I hope we never come across ever again, but these are all things in the past that even Microsoft has managed to grow through.

Again: if I've given up beating my neighbour for whatever reason, should I be allowed to walk free without answering for my past misdemeanours?

IE6 and IE6, as you say, have been actively trying to adhere to standards. They're not completely there, mainly because MS have been trying to keep as much backwards compatibility as possible (no company would dare upgrade if their intranet might not work without 3 months of expensive reprogramming). The "market" is what's changed this. Designers aren't designing for IE anymore; rather Firefox or Safari, and more people than ever validate and check multiple browsers.

I don't have enough factual knowledge about IE6+'s standards compliance, so I'll accept your assessment of the facts here. However, also note that Microsoft isn't able to EEE at the moment because it doesn't have a large enough market share; more unfair competition may yet increase their market share to the point where EEE becomes feasible. Making it apparent that EEE is illegal would go a long way towards preventing further such attempts, not only in the browser market but also across the IT product spectrum.

So this isn't something that needed legal intervention to effect, the market saw a gap for a better browser, Opera/Mozilla supplied, IE started playing catch-up.

We got lucky because Microsoft became complacent and neglected the browser market for a while. They won't make that mistake again. Had Microsoft not all but stopped browser development in the IE5 era but pushed more proprietary extensions more quickly, I don't think the competition would have been quite so successful.

what you're talking about is the requirement to educate people about browsers; something that would fix things but could be done without forcing a company to do something with its own property, against its will.

I don't agree with you. Educating people about browsers would help fix the issue, sure, but it's unfeasible (who should do it? how should they do it? who should pay for it? how long will it take? etc.). Also, it has no bearing on the question "is it legal to abuse a dominant market position in one market to gain an advantage in a different market?". No matter how educated or ignorant users are, Microsoft's practice of bundling IE with Windows may still turn out to be illegally anticompetitive. The court will have to decide whether this is the case or not. It's irrelevant whether Microsoft wants to comply with the law or not; they have to, because it's the law (or they can also stop doing business in the EU, of course -- it's their call). Again, take a different example, say, the Scottish national soft drink IRN BRU ("Iron Brew"). As far as I know, they're also selling it in Canada; however, because it's orange coloured, they have to decaffeinate it, because under Canadian law, only dark-coloured beverages may contain caffeine. You can argue whether the law has merit or is sensible, but if you want to sell IRN BRU in Canada, you have to decaffeinate it. Just because it's "against your will" doesn't make you exempt from the law. The situation is more difficult in the case of Microsoft because the law is less plain, at least to a layman; this is why the court will have to determine whether Microsoft violates it or not. But Microsoft's generic unwillingness to comply doesn't really enter the picture (specific unwillingness, after the court has ruled, is a different matter and is punished separately).

God forbid that Apple actually manage to wrestle the home-user monopoly from MS, do you think they'll be any better?

What ever gave you the impression I thought any given company would be better as a monopoly? Monopolies are bad. This is why we have laws to regulate them.