Actually enough people not using firefox for such tactics would hurt mozilla. It is “free” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make money. It makes money from entities such as google based on market share. I am finding Safari a good substitute. I still have firefox installed for some things Safari cannot do, but it is no longer my primary browser. I was considering going back to it as my primary browser, but this news changed my mind.

Plus I increasingly hear accusation from Windows people that Apple fans cheer when Microsoft is sued but cry when Apple is. And those accusations are often on target. I don’t care that I hate Microsoft, they are getting screwed here, and Mozilla is using dirty principles that goes against everything I believe in when it comes to free markets and light-handed government intrusion.

Yeah I know what you mean about Microsoft haters exploding with glee when MS gets attacked, but if MS does anything to anyone it’s suddenly “unfair” or “anti-competitive.” It’s totally unprincipled and partisan. Meh, Apple supports bad causes I know, but not to give themselves an unfair advantage.

I just don’t think I like any other browser as much as Firefox. Like Microsoft and Mozilla, I’m in it for myself. I can only hope that the antitrust case fails because it lacks merit.

[...] oppressor of mankind, oftentimes complete with outlandish slippery slope analogies. For example, Mozilla’s jumping upon the EU Commission dogpile on Microsoft. At any time, either Microsoft or Apple could be wrong. It is the knee-jerk presumption of guilt by [...]

Dizzle, it’s not that people are stupid, but they tend to go with the default option. It’s just a fact of life.

And it is the government’s job to change that habit? No. It is punishing success. Mozilla has earned a great deal of the market share based upon the merit of its browser.

Microsoft is bundling its web browser to its operating system, it wouldn’t be a problem if the company wasn’t in a dominant position, but their share of the operating system market is about 90 percent.

They are not holding a gun to anyone’s end forcing them to buy Windows. God forbid a company be successful!

The Commission believes that the tying of IE with Windows distorts competition because other web browsers can’t match IE’s artificial distribution advantage. I’m no lawyer, but under EC competition law it seems that dominant firms have a ’special responsability’ towards the competitive process, and that the responsability increases with the degree of dominance.

I believe that the Commission distorts the meaning of competition in an Orwellian fashion. Apple seems to have don’t quite well beating Microsoft’s advantage by creating what many believe to be a superior product. Companies should not be forced to hobble themselves from a completely appropriate act (providing its browser with its OS) because other people aren’t getting a “fair share.” Let them get it on merits.

Please see “EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials”, p. 323:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ry3bTbhrQWYC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323

I believe that you are representing them properly, but please understand I am American and have very fundamental philosophical disagreements with the EC which I see as containing economic social engineering practices. I am an unabashed proponent of a market as free from government interference as possible. Certainly not laissez-faire but a middle ground.

The same kind of thing can happen in the U.S., remember when Judge Jackson issued a preliminary injunction (later overturned by the appeals Court) that ordered Microsoft to separate IE from Windows 95? And to this day the company is still under DoJ scrutiny to make sure that it complies with the anti-trust judgment.

I agree, and I think such decisions are equally wrong-headed in general, but I would have to read each specific case to give more details. American judges have gotten increasingly liberal and socialistic and going beyond their Constitutional role in my opinion.

In your WoA article, you state that Firefox itself comes with Google as the default search bar and that Mozilla’s stance on the Microsoft issue (bundling and stuff) is thus hypocritical. The difference is that 1) Microsoft has market power, but this is not the case of Mozilla; 2) Windows and IE both are Microsoft’s products. Google is not Mozilla Corp’s search engine and as of late Google Chrome is even competing with Mozilla in the browser arena.

Firefox didn’t make the argument based on dominance but upon a techno-hippy free love analogy. Mozilla makes its money from Google while putting itself forth as “open and free.” Someone is paying and those costs end up costing the consumer elsewhere. There is no such thing as “free.” Someone is paying. Mozilla is hypocritical because it is simply protecting its own business model and disguising as being a champion of the people.

Why all the fuss about Mozilla and the “open and free mentality”? Mozilla has been granted permission to participate but let’s not gloss over the fact that the Commission originally received a complaint from Opera Software. Opera, maker of a proprietary web browser.

I happened to be a big fan of Mozilla, so the focus on Mozilla was to express my personal issue with Mozilla, and the way I handled it. I don’t use their product any longer. I can’t possibly cover every angle.

I will readily concede that the most difficult thing to find is an effective remedy, remedies usually suck. What about a dialog during Windows install asking the user if she wants to use “Express Settings” (IE) or to make active choices (another browser)? Something like this:

http://searchengineland.com/search-internet-explorer-8-14639

If the concern is consumer ignorance, then all that should be required is a notice letting the user know that there are other browsers available and perhaps linking to a government funded page that contains all the educational informational that the government feels the people should know. Like labeling a product to educate. I would think that would a both constructive and effective remedy to the alleged concern. You see, I don’t believe the alleged concern is the true motivation behind a lot of this.

It’s cool to show your support for Microsoft when the firm is being held for ransom by a patent troll for instance, but not in this particular case. Microsoft has long been hindering progress on the web.

But that has nothing to do with the specific issue. You see, I don’t like Microsoft, and I despise Internet Destroyer. I don’t even test my sites any longer for compatibility with the abomination. But the market and enough sites posting disclaimers that they are best viewed on alternate browsers is the way to go.

After defeating Netscape, they stopped developing IE altogether. It had a huge share of the market at the time, so the smart thing to do for the benefit of users was obviously to let it rot in the sun. For years.

That is their prerogative. No one was stopping anyone from developing a competing browser that would succeed on the merits or starting a grass-roots campaign against Microsoft as consumers. Crying to the government is my beef.