[anigbrowl]

Indeed, in fact they'll probably install IE8, firefox, and something else, so the end result for the consumer won't be all that different.

Although I'm basically pro-regulation (that is, I think governments should be able to act on behalf of consumers when they're being given a raw deal), the EU is going overboard with this. Microsoft is not such a terrible ogre and doesn't make it difficult for me to use alternatives to its own software.

OK, so I'm a nerd and Joe or Jane Blow doesn't know that well why one browser is better than another or how they might benefit. But I don't see how that's Microsoft's fault, nor do I see how they've done ~$1.5 billion of damage to consumers. Is everyone in the EU $3 worse off because of IE? Really? I can think of a LOT of businesses that have done a lot more damage - to the environment, indirectly to people's health, and so forth - than Microsoft has.

(long rumination on anti-trust regulation deleted, but) it rather disturbs me that the two biggest fines levied for supposed malfeasance have both been on computer corporations, who do more than most industries to democratize innovation and economic opportunity. I feel the EU is just demanding these big fines because the companies can pay, rather than because of real injury they have created.

A typical American cellphone contract is far more economically punishing than the lost productivity due to having to install a non-IE browser by your own damn self.

[graemep]

It is exactly the same approach as used on other monopolists, even many that have not been shown to have abused their monopoly: e.g. imposing local loop unbundling on incumbent telcos.

[anigbrowl]

A reasonable point, but whereas you can go out and buy a new computer or operating system tomorrow, you can't just wire your house up to a different telco. Infrastructure is complicated. If private enterprise were the easy answer people suggest, surely we'd all be enjoying ultra-high speed fiber broadband by now.