[ReferenceSeete]

Interesting topic.

I feel for both sides on this. I do agree that IE, especially IE6, resulted in a lot of extra work being done on the part of designers. But the stagnation argument seems dangerous to me for a couple reasons:

1. If the issue is W3C compliance, then a solution is to make MS issue a W3C compliant browser. However, this doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution for the EU (please correct if mistaken).

2. If the web was truly stagnated by IE6, then the web should still be frozen to the technology of IE6. Clearly this isn't the case, so it seems peculiar to say "IE caused/causes stagnation" when the web has demonstrably moved forward despite IE.

Still, the success of Firefox seems to put a significant damper on Opera's argument that 'Windows + IE = no market share for anyone else'. Mozilla and their Firefox browser accomplished what Opera didn't (and hasn't) under the same conditions. It's not just about being innovative, there are many examples of innovative companies and individuals not capitalising on their work.

The dissenters here have a point about the potential chicken-and-egg problem by having no browser on the PC. Clearly some other mechanism needs to be in place for a person to acquire a browser, whether that is an OEM pre-install or a downloader that lets one choose which browser they want.

I agree that in the case of a monopoly that regulators need to look more closely at what is going on - Certainly in the cases of price-fixing or locking out other vendors.

What makes me curious about the EU-Microsoft case is that an Operating System is somewhat unique. An OS is a platform for a broad array of other software. And some types of software are more profitable than others. Even in the case of a monopoly, at what point does the competition argument make no sense? Especially if the OS is not designed to lock-out competing software?

What if I start a company with a competing calculator for Windows...Do I really have a legitimate complaint of 'anti-competitive behaviour by bundling'? Even after years of little traction? Is the presence of a company attempting to provide an alternative piece of an OS enough conclude 'this bundling is anti-competitive'?

Lastly, where does the money from these fines go? Are the fines used for assisting the harmed enterprises? Or does the EU just use it like tax revenue?

Perhaps those who have been following the case more closely can inform me of the pertinent details so I have a better understanding. Thanks.