Hey, Microsoft! The EC heard you wanted to make a concession yesterday and were considering stripping IE8 from Windows 7 in Europe. Well, they've got two words for you: Nice try.

The Commission's press release this morning states "As for retail sales...the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."

Oddly, though, they also minimize the importance of the retail channel, noting that it accounts for a paltry 5% of sales.

On the OEM front, it's a another story: "As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal may potentially be more positive. It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer – which Microsoft will supply free of charge - another browser or multiple browsers."

Would appear to be able to choose? How would they not be able to choose which browser to load on an OS that ships browser-free? They choose to load plenty of other bloat right now, so dumping a browser or four on their PCs really shouldn't be too tough.

As for the beef with retail, Microsoft can't win that one. If they ship no browser, users have no way of downloading an alternative. If they choose to list some browsers, the companies who are passed over will cry foul - and there are a lot of people developing web browsers (see Wikipedia). The EC, of course, is pushing a 'ballot screen' though I've seen no mention of which browsers will appear on it or how they will be selected in a fair and impartial manner.

What it boils down to is that the EC wants to decide how bad a boy Microsoft has been since 1996 and what kind of penance it needs to do.

Pro tip, EC: Windows 7 is due to ship soon, and Microsoft is making an effort here (gasp!). Maybe it's time to come to a consensus already.

[via PC World]

The European Commission appears to be a few steps closer to forcing Microsoft to provide customers with a choice of web browsers as part of an antitrust measure. European regulators took similar measures a while back by requiring Microsoft to offer a version of Windows sans Windows Media Player. But simply unbundling Internet Explorer is a bit more complicated, since, as many readers pointed out when we first mentioned the possibility - it's a lot easier to download an alternative browser if you have a browser to start with.

But a spokesperson for the European Commission says that it's likely regulators will require Microsoft to offer customers a choice of competing web browsers in addition to Internet Explorer. So basically, when you run Windows for the first time, you may be asked if you want to install Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome, or another browser as part of the setup process. Presumably the browsers you don't install would be erased from your storage or wouldn't be downloaded in the first place, which is a much better solution than installing each 5 browsers when most users will only need one.

It's also possible that the decision could be left to computer makers. For example, Dell could decide to install Firefox, while Lenovo goes with Internet Explorer.

There's still another round or two of negotiations to go, but it sounds like the European Commission is already pretty close to requiring Microsoft to do something to make it easier for customers to use competing web browsers.

[via Electronista]

Sometimes it may seem like there are only two or three web browsers that matter. Most computer users surf the web with Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Safari. But there are a ton of other options, including Opera, Google Chrome, and Sleipnir. Still, most people continue to use Internet Explorer, and one of the main reasons for that is because it's the web browser that comes bundled with Windows, the operating system installed on around 90% of all consumer oriented computers.

A while back, the folks behind the Opera browser decided to do something about this, and filed a complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission. And last week, the Commission ruled that Microsoft is violating EC antitrust rules by bundling its browser with its operating system.

It's not clear what the next step is yet. It's possible that the EC could impose a stiff fine against Microsoft, or it could require Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without Internet Explorer in Europe (which would still be available as a free download from Microsoft's web site). That's the approach European regulators took a few years back with Microsoft's bundling of Windows Media Player. But even if Microsoft is ordered to unbundle Internet Explorer, Microsoft may retain the right to sell two versions of Windows, one with IE, and one without.

What do you think, is it anti-competitive to include a web browser with your operating system, or is it just common sense since most people expect to be able to surf the web immediately after plugging in their new computer? If Microsoft is told to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows, would it lead to surge in popularity of alternative applications like Firefox or Opera?

After nine years, Microsoft has given up its fight against European Union regulators. Essentially, the EU says Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such should take certain measures to give consumers more options and open up its source code a tiny bit to enable interoperability with third party software.

Microsoft has decided not to appeal the latest EU court ruling, which means the company will fork over $705 million which had been sitting in an escrow account since since the fine was levied in 2004.

Other highlights of the agreement include:

• Microsoft will allow third party companies to license non-patented technology to ensure interoperability with Windows
• Companies will only have to pay a one-time €10,000 fee for that intellectual property, not an ongoing royalty
  

In return, the EU is removing its hit from Microsoft's head. In other words, no more fines against the company until the next time it tries to do something incredibly anti-competitive, like (hypothetically) engineering an operating system that plays well with Microsoft Office but not so well with competing software suites like OpenOffice.org.

There's good news and bad news for Microsoft today. The bad news is that the European Court of First Instance has upheld a 2004 court decision finding Microsoft guilty of violating antitrust laws. The god news is that if anyone can afford a $690 million fine and 80% of court costs, it's Bill Gates. But somehow we doubt he'll see it that way.

The Court upheld portions of the 2004 ruling that ordered Microsoft to share information with other software developers in order to make sure their programs were compatible with Microsoft's operating systems and applications. Microsoft also needs to have a version of Windows that does not come with Windows Media Player pre-loaded.

The Court did throw out one portion of the earlier ruling. A lower court had ruling had established an independent trustee to monitor Microsoft, but the Court of First Instance found this step unnecessary.

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith released a statement saying that he is still reviewing the decision. He does say the company will "comply with our obligations under European law," and implies that Microsoft may still appeal today's decision.