Dear all, We at FSFE made the following announcement this afternoon:
Free Software Foundation Europe today announces that it will support the European Commission's antitrust investigation against Microsoft and to this effect it has formally requested to be admitted as an interested third party.
The investigation began on the 16th of January when the European Commission DG Competition reported that it had issued a statement of objections regarding Microsoft's abuse of web standards and the tying of Internet Explorer (IE) to the Windows Operating System product family. It is based on a complaint submitted by Opera, a European company involved in web browser development, which FSFE publicly supported in 2007.
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
For the full details, see here: http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/2009/news-20090227-01.en.html
Also, please vote for the story on FSDaily: http://www.fsdaily.com/Legal/Free_Software_Foundation_Europe_engages_in_the_...
Regards,
* Graeme West:
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
Will the FSFE recommend that GNU/Linux distributions include Opera?
* Florian Weimer (fw@deneb.enyo.de) [27.02.09 20:27]:
- Graeme West:
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
Will the FSFE recommend that GNU/Linux distributions include Opera?
Well, I kinda doubt this. Ever read the EULA?
Sebastian
2009/2/27 Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de:
- Graeme West:
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
Will the FSFE recommend that GNU/Linux distributions include Opera?
Presumably only those GNU/Linux distributions that have been found guilty of leveraging an operating system monopoly into a browser monopoly.
- d.
Florian Weimer wrote:
- Graeme West:
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
Will the FSFE recommend that GNU/Linux distributions include Opera?
Change the question to:
Will the FSFE suggest non free software to people. I think you already know the answer.
P.
Florian,
Am Freitag, 27. Februar 2009 20:05:37 schrieb Florian Weimer:
- Graeme West:
FSFE considers anti-competitive behaviour unacceptable, whether it occurs through 'tying' products, or in circumventing standards and fair access. FSFE will seek to support all processes that ensure competition and enable innovation.
Will the FSFE recommend that GNU/Linux distributions include Opera?
of course not, but you have already known this.
I think I know why you are asking, though: What is the difference of Microsoft integrating IE into Windows to Mandriva integrating Konqueror into KDE?
One difference is obvious, and this is market share. Microsoft's very large market share has put them in a unique position to do misschief in other areas.
Others points are harder to see at the first look. As far as I can say Microsoft has done deliberate technical (and other) decisions for the sole purpose of obstructing their competition in the browser market. This makes it a case for the European Commission. Because there is Free Software like Iceweasel and Konqueror competing with Microsoft's offerings, supporting the EC is useful for FSFE.
Did I get your implied question right? What do you think about it?
Also see the following blog entries of Georg and Carlo on the matter: http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=229 http://www.piana.eu/browsers
Best, Bernhard
* Bernhard Reiter:
What is the difference of Microsoft integrating IE into Windows to Mandriva integrating Konqueror into KDE?
Yes, this is a less provocative way of putting it.
Actually, I'm mainly concerned about Debian. I would like that the Debian Project is free to decide what to put on the installation media (and what to include in the main distribution).
One difference is obvious, and this is market share. Microsoft's very large market share has put them in a unique position to do misschief in other areas.
Dominant market shares lie well below historic Microsoft-like levels.
I have trouble with arguments along the lines, "it's okay when we do it because we're so much smaller". We don't really know how small or big we are, and I think the FSF is the dominant licensing organization in quite a few areas.
As far as I can say Microsoft has done deliberate technical (and other) decisions for the sole purpose of obstructing their competition in the browser market.
"Sole purpose"? I think this point can be made with regard to the OEM distribution agreements in the mid-90s. But beyond that, I think there are valid technical concerns as well, such as reduced support overhead and more manageable regression testing, and questions of technology licensing.
Because there is Free Software like Iceweasel and Konqueror competing with Microsoft's offerings, supporting the EC is useful for FSFE.
Even if they don't comply with open Internet standards? (Note that in this context, as used by the Commission, "open" does not exclude RAND-licensed patents.)
I also don't see what's in this for the FSFE. I understand that for some companies, extorting money from a market leader is a viable business, and the EU seems to like this approach, too. However, none of this strengthens the EU software industry, or promotes free software. And any strong precedent against bundling will likely harm free software distributors in the long run (and distributors in the embedded space are probably affected in the short term).
2009/3/22 Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de:
- Bernhard Reiter:
One difference is obvious, and this is market share. Microsoft's very large market share has put them in a unique position to do misschief in other areas.
Dominant market shares lie well below historic Microsoft-like levels. I have trouble with arguments along the lines, "it's okay when we do it because we're so much smaller". We don't really know how small or big we are, and I think the FSF is the dominant licensing organization in quite a few areas.
Microsoft not only has a monopoly, it has repeatedly been found to abuse its monopoly. This does in fact make all the difference.
If you really don't get it, I suspect this is more a lack of joined-up thinking on your part than a problem with anyone else's behaviour.
- d.
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 13:49 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Bernhard Reiter:
What is the difference of Microsoft integrating IE into Windows to Mandriva integrating Konqueror into KDE?
Yes, this is a less provocative way of putting it.
No it is a way to show lack of understanding of what the problem is.
Thinking along this lines fails to account what antitrust, monopoly, dominant position, distortion of markets, ecc.. means in modern countries.
Actually, I'm mainly concerned about Debian. I would like that the Debian Project is free to decide what to put on the installation media (and what to include in the main distribution).
Is Debian a convicted Monopoly that is leveraging its dominance to impose a browser ? NO.
One difference is obvious, and this is market share. Microsoft's very large market share has put them in a unique position to do misschief in other areas.
Dominant market shares lie well below historic Microsoft-like levels.
Yet the market position is still dominant.
I have trouble with arguments along the lines, "it's okay when we do it because we're so much smaller". We don't really know how small or big we are, and I think the FSF is the dominant licensing organization in quite a few areas.
"We" do *not* have a dominant market position by a *very* long shot, so whatever "we" do is totally irrelevant for antitrust cases.
As far as I can say Microsoft has done deliberate technical (and other) decisions for the sole purpose of obstructing their competition in the browser market.
"Sole purpose"? I think this point can be made with regard to the OEM distribution agreements in the mid-90s. But beyond that, I think there are valid technical concerns as well, such as reduced support overhead and more manageable regression testing, and questions of technology licensing.
Bullshit, the simple fact that Opera, Firefox, etc.. run on windows without any problem except for incompatibilities and extensions introduced in IE for the sole purpose of making it more tied and lockin users that use services tailored for it demonstrate that your argument about support or what not is pure fantasy.
An "Operating System" is meant to run *any* application. If they had bundled IE with MS Office like they do for MS Outlook, *nobody* would have complained at the antitrust level.
And another demonstration is that in other fields MS was not interested at the moment you had freedom to install whatever you wanted, even applications operating at a very low level, like anti-virus software (and wonder now they embed an anti-virus software, I bet in a few years we will potentially see another antitrust case there), or media players (until MS embedded their and got an antitrust case), or just any other basic application that is available until MS introduces its version that is (one way) incompatible with whatever else on the market till that moment.
MS could have embedded a normal browser as long as it had made it: a) optional b) use standards or c) had proposed and standardized whatever extension they deemed absolutely needed.
MS made IE non optional, non-standard (not only with extensions but also deliberately behaving differently in rendering pages for some non secondary aspects), and didn't even try to standardize any extension they added.
Because there is Free Software like Iceweasel and Konqueror competing with Microsoft's offerings, supporting the EC is useful for FSFE.
Even if they don't comply with open Internet standards? (Note that in this context, as used by the Commission, "open" does not exclude RAND-licensed patents.)
In what way do they not comply ? And why would that be relevant, they are not in a dominant position.
I also don't see what's in this for the FSFE. I understand that for some companies, extorting money from a market leader is a viable business, and the EU seems to like this approach, too. However, none of this strengthens the EU software industry, or promotes free software. And any strong precedent against bundling will likely harm free software distributors in the long run (and distributors in the embedded space are probably affected in the short term).
Because Free Software *depends* on operating on a level playing field. If you allow companies to distort markets then FOSS is pretty much dead there, as it cannot compete with artificial vendor lock-in.
As I see it, for FSFE is more a matter of principle. A true free market allows FOSS to co-exist with all other software. A distorted market allows only a few huge companies to impose whatever they want and put a barrier to entry that becomes very quickly impenetrable.
And on the internet, where network effects are extremely powerful, that is much more important than for other things.
Simo.
Hi Florian,
On Sunday 22 March 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Bernhard Reiter:
What is the difference of Microsoft integrating IE into Windows to Mandriva integrating Konqueror into KDE?
Yes, this is a less provocative way of putting it.
Actually, I'm mainly concerned about Debian. I would like that the Debian Project is free to decide what to put on the installation media (and what to include in the main distribution).
yes, Debian and other GNU/Linuxdistributions can do as they like and FSFE likes to keep it this way. (I think we've mentioned this in the last press release.)
One difference is obvious, and this is market share. Microsoft's very large market share has put them in a unique position to do misschief in other areas.
Dominant market shares lie well below historic Microsoft-like levels.
I have trouble with arguments along the lines, "it's okay when we do it because we're so much smaller". We don't really know how small or big we are, and I think the FSF is the dominant licensing organization in quite a few areas.
I think each antitrust case is unique, that is why it is considered. FSF's licensing position is completely different to Microsoft's Desktop vendor situation, even when the GNU GPL is the most dominant license used. So it is not just size that makes the difference here.
I also would have had a problem if our only argument would be size, but it is not.
As far as I can say Microsoft has done deliberate technical (and other) decisions for the sole purpose of obstructing their competition in the browser market.
"Sole purpose"? I think this point can be made with regard to the OEM distribution agreements in the mid-90s. But beyond that, I think there are valid technical concerns as well, such as reduced support overhead and more manageable regression testing, and questions of technology licensing.
Well, that is the point that need to be shown to the commission. Maybe on a few of these actions there can be arguments for a double purpose. It will needed to be determined for each point. In any case IT-technology is so important for society now that even if there is a theoretical double purpose, society has a strong interest to repair the market failure which lead to less competition, thus less innovation and worse software than what we could have had.
Because there is Free Software like Iceweasel and Konqueror competing with Microsoft's offerings, supporting the EC is useful for FSFE.
Even if they don't comply with open Internet standards? (Note that in this context, as used by the Commission, "open" does not exclude RAND-licensed patents.)
Yes, all browsers have pushed the envelope in allowing stuff and the current "web" standards are so complicated that there is probably no software being completely in compliance with it. Mainly the standard is what small page providers need to address, and this is set by the dominant browser.
I also don't see what's in this for the FSFE. I understand that for some companies, extorting money from a market leader is a viable business, and the EU seems to like this approach, too. However, none of this strengthens the EU software industry, or promotes free software. And any strong precedent against bundling will likely harm free software distributors in the long run (and distributors in the embedded space are probably affected in the short term).
It is not about bundling per se nor about money directly. It is about using the bundling to unfairly promote your own business and to exclude competitors. If this "abuse" stops, Konqueror or Iceweasel will have better chances to compete. And money is one of the way to put pressure on a company, maybe the only effective way in the end to punish them for unlawful behaviour.
You can see a noticable difference in Microsoft's behaviour regarding protocol documentation after the last actions of the EU commission. This was a step forward for the competition and Free Software. FSFE enages in the browser case because we believe it is possible to reach another step forward.
Bernhard