Hacker News Reader

Comment by marknutter | Hacker News Reader

This fine would only make sense if Microsoft prevented users from installing a different browser.

Consider an analogy: let's say there's a power company who runs a monopoly on generating electricity. They also provide natural gas services to their customers. There is, however, a bunch of other smaller natural gas companies just a phone call away that people can buy natural gas from; all you have to do is call them and have a technician come and flip a switch in your home. Is it really harmful to the consumer if the power company with the dominant market position doesn't give their customers the phone numbers of the companies competing with its natural gas division? No.

View on HN

You don't understand the context. MS did indeed prevent OEMs from installing another browser; it's like they were forcing house builders (which have to use electricity) to connect only their own gas services to new houses.

And for that sin, MS will keep paying for a long time; they're basically an ATM for the EU now. This is not great but hey, they do have a history; once a felon, forever a felon, so to speak.

But that doesn't fit with the analogy. Downloading and installing a third party browser is next to effortless. Who cares if the OEMs didn't install them? In my analogy the third party gas companies had to send out a technician to install their service, but could presumably do that free of charge to entice the customers to switch to their service.

It still prevented other companies to have similar, competing agreements with house builders, and inflicted extra costs on them. As such, it's clearly an abuse of a monopolistic position in one market to influence another.

In any case, this is not open to debate -- both the American and European justice systems found MS guilty, so that's how it is.

Right, because the American and European justice systems have never gotten it wrong, before.

No. The issue isn't that the end use couldn't install a browser, the issue was that Microsoft forbade OEMs with the threat of removing their distribution license from pre-installing other browsers, thus preventing competition at point of sale. This is anti-trust. It's not a 'stupid' law, it extremely sound. Microsoft, in all reality, should have been broken up as a result, but because the judge mouthed-off (and some heavy lobbying), they were treated more leaniently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com