Opera files Antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft and IE in EU

[Omega X]

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/
-----------------------------------------------------
Opera Software ASA, the only company that can put the Web on any device, filed a complaint with the European Commission yesterday which is aimed at giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers.

The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards. Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer.

"We are filing this complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist make choices for them," said Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera. "In addition to promoting the free choice of individual consumers, we are a champion of open Web standards and cross-platform innovation. We cannot rest until we've brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide."

Opera requests the Commission to implement two remedies to Microsoft’s abusive actions. First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop. Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities. The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. Microsoft's unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain, and technologically inferior and that can even expose users to security risks.

"Our complaint is necessary to get Microsoft to amend its practices," said Jason Hoida, Deputy General Counsel, Opera."The European Court of First Instance confirmed in September that Microsoft has illegally tied Windows Media Player to Windows. We are simply asking the Commission to apply these same, clear principles to the Internet Explorer tie, a tie that has even more profound effects on consumers and innovation. We are confident that the Commission understands the significance of the Internet Explorer tie and will take the necessary actions to restore competition and consumer choice in the browser market."

Opera has long held the position of innovator in the Web browser market, having introduced and pioneered features like tabbed browsing, Speed Dial, integrated search bar, mouse gestures, Opera Link™ and many others. Absent Microsoft’s abuse, Microsoft would have been forced to compete on a level playing field with Opera and other browsers. Instead of innovating, Microsoft has locked consumers to its own browser and only recently begun to offer some of the innovative features that other browsers have offered for years.

Both of Opera’s requested remedies are intended to give consumers greater freedom and flexibility while at the same time ensuring that the Web further develops into a platform for innovation. Opera believes that the remedies will help promote consumer rights worldwide and force Microsoft to begin competing with Opera and others on the merits of its browser.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder how far it will get in the EU since it obviously had little effect here in the US.

[zootm]

It's kind of a baseless claim, really. There's not a hell of a lot of abuse going on.

The EU does like to spank Microsoft for largely-inscrutable reasons though, so this may well progress.

[Omega X]

There is a lot of buzz today.

- An invited expert of the CSS working group is calling on the disbandment and reconstruction of the group without browser vendors as members(such as Opera's CTO), And the creation of a Technical Group that will act as a go between to browser vendors and the new CSS working group.
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/ma...working_group/

- A Mozilla Dev disagrees with the action since the complaint came when Microsoft is actively working on its browser now. (Calls it: Bad Timing)
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...13/bad-timing/

- CNET says that Microsoft responded that it won't unbundle IE.(sounds familiar)
http://www.news.com/Microsoft-strike...-0-5&subj=news

And web devs are pretty much across the board on this one. (obviously)



An Opera employee set up a FAQ on the questions about Opera's complaint.
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/show.dml/1582238


(Small Note, it should be "Complaint" in the title instead of "Lawsuit")

[zootm]

Originally posted by Omega X
An invited expert of the CSS working group is calling on the disbandment and reconstruction of the group without browser vendors as members(such as Opera's CTO), And the creation of a Technical Group that will act as a go between to browser vendors and the new CSS working group.

On one hand this seems sensible, but on the other hand these companies intentionally hire the true experts in these fields, so this could be shooting themselves in the foot somewhat. The CTO of Opera, in particular, is the creator of CSS. Mozilla's Brendan Eich is the creator of JavaScript.

Originally posted by Omega X
A Mozilla Dev disagrees with the action since the complaint came when Microsoft is actively working on its browser now. (Calls it: Bad Timing)

This mirrors my thoughts to some degree. Calling for change when change has already started happening just seems silly and fickle.

[BongiX]

Has change really started happening? Mozilla, too, seems to think that this is not the case:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadm...is_wilson.html

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/e...er/001309.html

(These URLs point to posts by Mozilla showing everyone how Microsoft is doing everything possible to undermine the new EcmaScript standard in order to push Silverlight/C# instead.)

As for excluding browser vendors from the CSS working group? That's silly, and besides, it has got nothing to do with this debate. That guy is just piggybacking off of the Opera story.

[zootm]

The ECMAScript standard update is being pushed mostly by Mozilla, not as a push for standards in general but as a push to standardise on their new standard. I doubt it's particularly useful.

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
The ECMAScript standard update is being pushed mostly by Mozilla, not as a push for standards in general but as a push to standardise on their new standard. I doubt it's particularly useful.

This is incorrect. ES4 is a new standard, and some of the entities working on the standard include Opera, Mozilla, Adobe, Yahoo, etc., as well as independent individuals who are on the ES4 committee as well.

Don't fall for Microsoft's FUD against ES4. Their PC machinery is at full force here, and has fooled a lot of people.

[zootm]

I've not even been paying attention to the Microsoft angle, it's just that the stakeholders are Mozilla (since they're the originators) and Adobe (since it's part of their Flash/Flex/Air/whatever framework). It's not like the .NET Framework is nonstandard (C# and CLR are published standards, and the dynamic languages for Silverlight are Python, Ruby, et al).

The problem that strikes me is that ES4 is extremely unlikely to be any more successful than Javascript is now, and without Microsoft fully on board (which they look unlikely to get) it'll just end up being the same story once again. It doesn't provide a huge deal, beyond (massive) convenience compared to the JS frameworks out there now; things like Flex, JavaFX, and Silverlight (all based on standard languages at least) are actually pushing forward the "rich internet" platform.

I'll read those links though, thanks. Since you're a new user URLs in your posts don't show up so here they are for clickability for everyone:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadm...is_wilson.html

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/e...er/001309.html

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
I've not even been paying attention to the Microsoft angle, it's just that the stakeholders are Mozilla (since they're the originators) and Adobe (since it's part of their Flash/Flex/Air/whatever framework).

What about Opera, Yahoo and the individual contributors?

The problem that strikes me is that ES4 is extremely unlikely to be any more successful than Javascript is now

The great thing about ES4 is that it's backwards compatible, so people can keep using JS (which is very successful indeed), while those who want to can use the new stuff

Since you're a new user URLs in your posts don't show up

How come, and what can one do to fix that?

[Omega X]

Originally posted by BongiX


How come, and what can one do to fix that?

New members have to be here for a while before being able to post links. (A spam precaution.)

[zootm]

Originally posted by BongiX
What about Opera, Yahoo and the individual contributors?

Well Microsoft themselves were (for a while) a major contributor themselves. Since everyone will end up using it everyone pitches in. But the main ones are Mozilla (Brendan Eich is the inventor and main developer of the language, remember) and Adobe (who already created the most sophisticated ECMAScript implementation known, unless - I suppose - you count the .NET JScript one which I doubt is standards-compliant).

Originally posted by BongiX
The great thing about ES4 is that it's backwards compatible, so people can keep using JS (which is very successful indeed), while those who want to can use the new stuff

I'm just yet to see why the web needs a new language. They seem to be trying to excise the most interesting parts of ECMAScript while maintaining backwards compatibility, which is going to end up in two languages pretending to be one language. I realise there's good arguments against having two completely disparate languages (two processors is rarely going to be easy to implement - the comments on the Eich post you put up actually address this quite well, and I'd have brought it up without reading it) but I'm not sure I understand why Javascript needs to be extended this far for the web alone.

Originally posted by BongiX
How come, and what can one do to fix that?

Just keep posting, there's a threshold I think. Hopefully someone will always repost the links until then.

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
Well Microsoft themselves were (for a while) a major contributor themselves.

It is my understanding that this is not the case. Instead, Microsoft always pushed for "ES3.1"

But the main ones are Mozilla (Brendan Eich is the inventor and main developer of the language, remember) and Adobe

How are they the main ones, but not Opera or any of the other committee members?

I'm just yet to see why the web needs a new language.

Microsoft seems to think so too. They just don't think it should be an open standard, but rather based on MS technologies.

They seem to be trying to excise the most interesting parts of ECMAScript while maintaining backwards compatibility, which is going to end up in two languages pretending to be one language.

No, if you have something based on ES3 it will still work with ES4 browsers. Nothing is removed from ES3. And it will still be one language.

[zootm]

Originally posted by BongiX
It is my understanding that this is not the case. Instead, Microsoft always pushed for "ES3.1"

From what I can tell, MS originally contributed a lot, then fell back from supporting the larger changes and supporting the "ES3.1" subset. This subset seems to maintain the language to be a similar form

Originally posted by BongiX
How are they the main ones, but not Opera or any of the other committee members?

One company designed the core language and has the single person who is guiding this development, and the other created the implementation that is

Originally posted by BongiX
Microsoft seems to think so too. They just don't think it should be an open standard, but rather based on MS technologies.

I don't refer to Silverlight as "the web", like I don't refer to Flex or JavaFX as "the web". I just mean the jumped-up DHTML situation we're in now.

I've no doubt that ES4 will be useful for Flex (and I certainly don't oppose its development), I'm just really not sure how much further down this road we can go with the web and so on. Microsoft's position seems to be that the web, as it stands, doesn't need an extra ton of stuff bolted onto a framework. Given how well the "standardisation" of the language's implementation in browsers has gone in the past (and it's not just Microsoft who are poor at this, not by a long shot) I'm not sure a strict superset is going to do anything but cause more troubles with ambiguity.

And as I discussed before, the Microsoft technologies which are equivalent to ECMAScript are open standards (see also Python, Ruby, etc.).

Originally posted by BongiX
No, if you have something based on ES3 it will still work with ES4 browsers. Nothing is removed from ES3. And it will still be one language.

This is kinda what I mean. The new language features are entirely inconsistent with the existing ones. They're attempting to make the language more similar to existing popular language while leaving the old features in, as you note. This is what I mean by it being "two languages"; the core of the existing language will still exist, but its features will be superseded by those in the new version.

I quite like the proposals but browser implementations are pretty haphazard already and this doesn't seem as thought it's going to make it better. The proposals don't seem to address the problems of the language as they are faced in the browser context.

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
One company designed the core language and has the single person who is guiding this development, and the other created the implementation that is

There is no single person guiding the development. It is a comittee, which includes Mozilla, Opera, Adobe, Yahoo, and more.

I don't refer to Silverlight as "the web", like I don't refer to Flex or JavaFX as "the web".

Right, but Microsoft would love Silverlight to be "the web".

Microsoft's position seems to be that the web, as it stands, doesn't need an extra ton of stuff bolted onto a framework.

That's because they want to bolt on their own framework instead. Microsoft wants the web to stay as it is. Unless they can control it of course.

Given how well the "standardisation" of the language's implementation in browsers has gone in the past (and it's not just Microsoft who are poor at this, not by a long shot) I'm not sure a strict superset is going to do anything but cause more troubles with ambiguity.

The standardization has been troublesome because Microsoft has actively undermined open standards. In this case, several browsers are going to implement ES4 correctly.

And as I discussed before, the Microsoft technologies which are equivalent to ECMAScript are open standards (see also Python, Ruby, etc.).

Is Silverlight an open standard?

This is kinda what I mean. The new language features are entirely inconsistent with the existing ones.

Not entirely, no. It offers new possibilities, and as an open standard as opposed to being locked to a certain vendor.

I quite like the proposals but browser implementations are pretty haphazard already and this doesn't seem as thought it's going to make it better.

It can be better if Microsoft stops trying to undermine the process (and lying about it). When several browser vendors are already on board in the ES4 committee it goes without saying that these will realize the necessity of high quality implementations.

The proposals don't seem to address the problems of the language as they are faced in the browser context.

What do you mean?

[zootm]

Originally posted by BongiX
There is no single person guiding the development. It is a comittee, which includes Mozilla, Opera, Adobe, Yahoo, and more.

Brendan Eich is guiding development. I don't think there's any "evidence" as such I can provide for this but it seems to be self-evident.

Originally posted by BongiX
Right, but Microsoft would love Silverlight to be "the web".

And Adobe would love Flex to be "the web"; irrelevant speculation. Silverlight is clearly not going to surpass the web in its entirety any time soon, and to assume that Microsoft think anything of the sort is stupidity.

Originally posted by BongiX
That's because they want to bolt on their own framework instead. Microsoft wants the web to stay as it is. Unless they can control it of course.

This is either paranoia or naiveté. The web is not equivalent to Silverlight and deliberately failing to compare it with its actual competitors is a little silly.

Originally posted by BongiX
The standardization has been troublesome because Microsoft has actively undermined open standards. In this case, several browsers are going to implement ES4 correctly.

I can't name two browser frameworks which implement ES3 in the same way, let alone correctly. Mozilla's implementation (which, although quirky, is as standard as they come) is certainly not compatible with KJS/JSKit (Safari, Konqueror, etc.), or Opera's implementation. If Microsoft were really trying to be incompatible, they could've been a lot moreso than they are.

Originally posted by BongiX
Is Silverlight an open standard?

The parts of it which are equivalent to ECMAScript are. If you want to compare likes with likes, you need to ask whether Flex or XUL are open standards.

Which they are not, incidentally.

Originally posted by BongiX
Not entirely, no. It offers new possibilities, and as an open standard as opposed to being locked to a certain vendor.

The Microsoft languages in question are categorically not locked to one vendor. And opposing the language improvements in the browser (where they'd end up in more compatibility problems, not less) isn't opposing them in general. I'm not sure what your quarrel here is.

Originally posted by BongiX
It can be better if Microsoft stops trying to undermine the process (and lying about it). When several browser vendors are already on board in the ES4 committee it goes without saying that these will realize the necessity of high quality implementations.

Honestly their conduct at present does reek of political problems but anyone who stands up to show how weird the whole ES4 process is is welcome. There's little need for a language like this for "the web" as I defined it before. It's being pushed for reasons outwith the welfare of the existing technologies.

Originally posted by BongiX
What do you mean?

The problems of the language, at present, do not include the fact that Javascript is a "bad language". They do not comprise of the fact that Javascript is poor for programming in the large. And yet, these are the problems that ES4 address. They are problems which almost intentionally ignore the actual needs of the browser and go straight for the commercial needs of companies running larger-than-in-browser apps on JS, such as Adobe and Mozilla. But the goals run contrary, or at least orthogonal, to JS's problems of incompatibility and the like.

[zootm]

I was quite drunk when I wrote the above so if it needs clarification just ask.

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
Brendan Eich is guiding development. I don't think there's any "evidence" as such I can provide for this but it seems to be self-evident.

Actually, Opera and others are guiding development as well, since they are members of the committee.

I can't name two browser frameworks which implement ES3 in the same way, let alone correctly.

This is because, shock and horror, browser vendors have had to work on being compatible with IE as well as implementing standards correctly. If they could ignore IE and only work on standards support, it would have beena lot better.

There's little need for a language like this for "the web" as I defined it before. It's being pushed for reasons outwith the welfare of the existing technologies.

Actually, this is not the case, since Opera is fully on board with ES4.

The problems of the language, at present, do not include the fact that Javascript is a "bad language". They do not comprise of the fact that Javascript is poor for programming in the large. And yet, these are the problems that ES4 address. They are problems which almost intentionally ignore the actual needs of the browser and go straight for the commercial needs of companies running larger-than-in-browser apps on JS, such as Adobe and Mozilla.

Then why is Opera pushing it as well?

[zootm]

Opera is pushing it as well because they have a strong stake on appearing to be fully standards-compliant, and they need to show their system making steady progress. They're big on standards and that's good for everyone.

My position, though, is that Microsoft's points are pretty valid, and not particularly unreasonable. If they're trying to undermine development it seems more likely, to my mind, that they're doing it simply because they don't feel like implementing the whole new standard.

[BongiX]

Originally posted by zootm
My position, though, is that Microsoft's points are pretty valid, and not particularly unreasonable. If they're trying to undermine development it seems more likely, to my mind, that they're doing it simply because they don't feel like implementing the whole new standard.

New information has come to light...

my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2007/12/18/microsoft-sabotaging-css-too

[Omega X]

Thanks BongiX.

Wow, its looking uglier every day.

On a side note, In that very same mailing list part underneath L. David Baron's comment is a post from Ian Hickson that talks about somekind of pseudo DRM scheme that Microsoft proposed for Fonts.

[BongiX]

Is it the one quoted in the blog post?

lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0084.html

[Omega X]

Yep, that's the one.

[zootm]

The CSS thing seems more serious, it'll be interesting to see how that pans out (since at the moment we only really have some rumours and whatnot).

The fonts thing sounds like legal people talking to computer people and everyone ending up very confused.

[BongiX]

@zootm

In this one he talks about "protecting Microsoft":

lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0094.html

Wow. That's the clearest example of the attitude of secrecy and "process over progress" that I've seen in a long time.

There was no confidential information in the mail I sent out. Maybe if you didn't spend so much time trying to protect Microsoft, and spent a little more time worrying about what would be the best for the Web, the CSS working group wouldn't be in such a mess.

[zootm]

Well effectively that just means that the MS people are made to follow strict rules by their legal department; in that sort of atmosphere it becomes difficult to do many things that involve interacting with other groups usefully. It's a shame.

I'm in a similar situation myself; I'm currently not sure how much I can talk about the work I do at my job (so I tend not to talk about it at all), and more seriously I'm worried about how much stuff I can do outside of work and then release publically. I need to re-read my contract. Legal stuff seems, to me, to muddy the waters in this industry though.

[Omega X]

Things seem to be moving forward with IE8.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...milestone.aspx

They claim that the changes went in before Opera filed its complaint. But its still a convenient post at a time when Opera complained about the lack of standards in IE.

[BongiX]

Acid2 only tests a small subset of various standards, though, so it remains to be seen what the final thing will do...

[zootm]

Acid2 actually tests a bunch of things that aren't even standards. And some deliberately-broken stuff. If you conform to it you're pretty much golden for a great proportion of things, though.

I don't think Microsoft have intentionally avoided standards in a while. When they were developing IE7 they explained the limitations of their new standards compliance, since at that point they had more important priorities in the development, and had a strong incentive to retain backwards-compatibility in a bunch of stuff. It'll be interesting to see if IE8 is the release they were hinting they'd fix all the standards problems in, and how they've managed to reconcile that with backwards-compatibility.