[MichaelApproved]

You're misunderstanding. The problem is that Microsoft is using its OS monopoly to try and create another one. These special anticompetetive triggers only come into effect when the company has a monopoly.

To be more clear, there is noting illegal about HAVING a monopoly. It's what you do WITH a monopoly that matters. If you don't have a monopoly, you're much less restricted with what you can do.

To correct you analogy, it would be if one car company manufactured 90% of the cars and decided to sell the cars with its own tire brand.

[pepperp]

Fair, I get you. I still wouldn't have a problem with the corrected analogy. Firstly, I consider the web browser an integral part of an OS even if you have the choice to replace it, so it's not creating a further monopoly, it's just part of the package (just like tires and the body of a car).

But more importantly, problems caused by some monopolies (e.g. extortion), and monopolies themselves, have historically been the RESULT of government intervention. Other web browsers obviously can compete considering IE is not the most widely used browser anymore.

[MichaelApproved]

First, let me say that I like Microsoft. I'm a happy Windows user and developer but what they did with IE was wrong and I'm happy someone tried to hold them accountable.

Originally, Netscape was a thriving company and able to make money by selling it's software to consumers. Microsoft crushed them by giving their interferer browser away for free with their Windows monopoly. For many years after that, consumers had a terrible browser with little to no alternatives.

Eventually, web browsers found a way to compete but consumers suffered with the artificially created IE monopoly. Innovation to slow down and even went backwards during those years.

You're looking at the world today as if it was always thriving with choices but MS inflicted many years of damage to consumers by illegally driving out competition and stifling innovation.

It's important for governments to protect competition and prevent monopoly abuse. You might argue that MS got away with killing Netscape because the fine was worth it for them but at least they were stopped from preventing more damage with their monopoly. Who knows what other businesses they would have tried to shut down.

[vidarh]

That it is an integral part is relatively unimportant all the time there exists an independent market for it.

Tires are an integral part of cars, yet there is a thriving market for tires. A car manufacturer that got to Microsoft level market share and tried to shut out other tire manufacturers would face the same kind of scrutiny.

[powertower]

Since when couldn't you just open IE and download your browser of choice?

The browser ballot is BS imposed by bureaucrats.

[vidarh]

Since human nature meant a substantial percentage of users are uninformed about what is available to them, and this is part of what made Microsoft monopoly abuse possible.

[powertower]

Hold on...

So when a consumer is not aware of XXX, it's Microsoft's fault?

*Substitute XXX for anything you want - alternative browsers, quantum mechanics, his own mortality, etc.

Personally, I think it's the consumer who should accept that responsibility.

[MichaelApproved]

Back in the day, Netscape charged for their browser. You couldn't just download your browser, you had to pay. Even though IE wasn't as good, people stuck with it because it was the free option that was already there.

Never mind that even if a browser is free, alternative browsers face substantial friction. Many users don't even understand what a browser actually is.