Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain to me why it is illegal for companies like Microsoft to issue their OS with only Internet explorer pre-installed? They are not forcing anyone to use it, as they can always get a cd and install whatever the want (or use IE to download whatever they want). I'm not defending IE or microsoft here, I'm just curious to why that is illegal? Especially with something that is free.
    Surely than, purchasing a printer and getting the same brand paper and inkjets included it in would be illegal too.

    And then when it comes to search engines, I cannot understand why they are not allowed to play around with their results, I understand it's not moral to favor or unfairly rank whatever website, but why is it illegal to do so? It's their product, it's free, if you don't like how it operates, don't use it?
    I noticed that if you search "search engine" in google, bing is above in ranking then google, and the opposite if you search the same in bing.
    So you are not allowed to say your product is "better" than another on your own product?
    I'm sure there are many companies claiming they got the best "x" product and that doesn't seem to be illegal?

    I understand all these laws and rules are to protect the user and to give them choice, and I do not disagree with them. I just don't really understand how certain companies are allowed to do something and others are not (usually depending on the type of product or the size of the company)?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand it either.

    Especially in this web browser case. Why is it only Microsoft that has to follow this rule that they have to give you explicit options to install other browsers? Do you get the same thing on OSX? Safari comes as standard on iPhones and iPads. When you get a new one you don't get presented options for other browsers when you first set it up.

    Microsoft are only being punished because they were successful. Supposedly they were "abusing their position" by giving their browser an advantage because their OS was so popular. Even though all their competitors do the same. The reasoning doesn't even apply any more. Microsoft's competitors are gaining a lot of ground on them. MS certainly don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems any more if you consider how many people are switching to using their phones and tablets for things they used to use a PC for. I also don't see why different rules should apply to PCs, phones and tablets. They're all consumer oriented computers at the end of the day, there is no fundamental difference in what they actually are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly, It's not so much the law that bothers me, it is that it's not consistent and seems to only target certain companies or certain type of products.

    Another example I can think is companies patenting redicilous stuff like slide to unlock a phone, the shape of a phone and being able to sue other makers for using such basic technology. Why didn't companies sue eachother when all phones used to get locked by pressing a key with the key symbol and then pressing ok? Or why is it that phone makers patent every single damn thing? Should car manufacturers start patenting doors, locks, imobilsers, tyres?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dada55)
    Exactly, It's not so much the law that bothers me, it is that it's not consistent and seems to only target certain companies or certain type of products.
    It is that you have only a limited awareness of industrial research and development so that you are unaware of patents in fields in which you are not interested.

    Should car manufacturers start patenting doors, locks, imobilsers, tyres?
    They do.

    Here is a patent for a Ford car door.

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=clw...page&q&f=false
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I don't understand it either.

    Especially in this web browser case. Why is it only Microsoft that has to follow this rule that they have to give you explicit options to install other browsers? Do you get the same thing on OSX? Safari comes as standard on iPhones and iPads. When you get a new one you don't get presented options for other browsers when you first set it up.

    Microsoft are only being punished because they were successful. Supposedly they were "abusing their position" by giving their browser an advantage because their OS was so popular. Even though all their competitors do the same. The reasoning doesn't even apply any more. Microsoft's competitors are gaining a lot of ground on them. MS certainly don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems any more if you consider how many people are switching to using their phones and tablets for things they used to use a PC for. I also don't see why different rules should apply to PCs, phones and tablets. They're all consumer oriented computers at the end of the day, there is no fundamental difference in what they actually are.
    Back in the day there were companies that sold internet browsers. Essentially that was all they did.

    Microsoft which sold many products then started giving away internet browsers for free. They didn't give away Windows 95 or Office or Encarta but they did give away Internet Explorer. That was seen as uncompetitive because they were using the profits of their other products to drive the sellers of a competing product out of business.

    Microsoft are reaping what they sowed. Due to their breach of competition law they were required essentially to promote other people's products.

    Essentially you don't care because you do not own or work for the maker of a competing product.

    Competition law doesn't only apply to computers. There are many sectors where companies are fined for uncompetitive activities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Back in the day there were companies that sold internet browsers. Essentially that was all they did.

    Microsoft which sold many products then started giving away internet browsers for free. They didn't give away Windows 95 or Office or Encarta but they did give away Internet Explorer. That was seen as uncompetitive because they were using the profits of their other products to drive the sellers of a competing product out of business.

    Microsoft are reaping what they sowed. Due to their breach of competition law they were required essentially to promote other people's products.

    Essentially you don't care because you do not own or work for the maker of a competing product.

    Competition law doesn't only apply to computers. There are many sectors where companies are fined for uncompetitive activities.
    Well if that's the case, then it should no longer apply right? Pretty much all browsers are free now. So I don't see why Microsoft should continue to be punished for it.

    And actually the company I work for actually does compete with Microsoft in some ways (I'm a game developer and they make competing games). Although overall we benefit from having a relationship with Microsoft.

    I've just thought of a similar situation. Sometimes when a big game comes out, the big supermarkets sell it very cheap. So cheap they're probably making a loss on it. But they can do it because it brings people into the shop where a lot of them will buy lots of other things while they're there. That sounds like pretty much the same thing you're talking about. They're potentially driving competitors out of business because they can leverage their other products to sell games cheap. Are supermarkets being fined for that?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Well if that's the case, then it should no longer apply right? Pretty much all browsers are free now. So I don't see why Microsoft should continue to be punished for it.

    And actually the company I work for actually does compete with Microsoft in some ways (I'm a game developer and they make competing games). Although overall we benefit from having a relationship with Microsoft.

    I've just thought of a similar situation. Sometimes when a big game comes out, the big supermarkets sell it very cheap. So cheap they're probably making a loss on it. But they can do it because it brings people into the shop where a lot of them will buy lots of other things while they're there. That sounds like pretty much the same thing you're talking about. They're potentially driving competitors out of business because they can leverage their other products to sell games cheap. Are supermarkets being fined for that?
    Supermarkets aren't being fined for this. The computer games market has not been the subject of recent complaint. On the other hand supermarkets are being fined over milk pricing http://www.thelawyer.com/supermarket...130333.article and are subject to restrictions over grocery supply http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/mon...SCOP-Order.pdf which is currently being toughened up by new legislation. http://www.publications.parliament.u...30113_en_2.htm
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.