Microsoft’s New European Drama Unfolds
Microsoft’s decision to offer a special “E” version of Windows 7 in Europe makes loads of sense. The company made a tough call, but a right one. The European Competition Commission and Opera can complain, but Microsoft is thinking business, which is the right priority.
I’m not defending Microsoft’s tactic of bundling—in legal parlance tying—Internet Explorer to Windows, nor am I reproaching it. I encourage people to stake out their opposing positions in comments. But I do commend Microsoft’s pragmatic solution—and one that clears the way for Windows 7’s worldwide launch.
One paragraph recap: This week, Microsoft started informing OEMs that Windows 7 would ship in Europe without Internet Explorer 8. The decision comes as the European Commission prepares sanctions against Microsoft for tying the browser to the operating system. Microsoft’s move preempts the EC, which could still demand some other remedy.
It’s a brilliant business decision, because:
- Microsoft can comfortably plan on launching Windows 7 worldwide on October 22nd, regardless of the EC’s remedy.
- The solution is reasonable enough that the European Commission will have a tougher time imposing a tougher, alternative remedy.
- By shipping IE on a separate disc, Microsoft also can offer Windows Live Essentials and other software—all technically unbundled but easily accessible.
Each of these business goals/benefits needs further explanation.
Windows 7’s Launch
Microsoft is most vulnerable to competitor interference right before launching a new operating system. The company also is most likely to make concessions about Windows in the months before launch. In early 2001, Kodak complained to the New York’s attorney general about Windows XP’s new, bundled photo features. At that time, Microsoft hadn’t yet settled its US antitrust case and was under strict scrutiny form the Justice Department. Microsoft made changes that allowed Kodak’s software to be a default option. Microsoft made other concessions—some of them preemptive—such as ceding control of desktop icons, ahead of Windows XP’s launch.
Competitors also circled around Windows Vista, pointing fingers and crying out for Daddy Trustbuster to do something about Microsoft. Google complained about Internet Explorer 7 search defaults, which the Justice Department decided were flexible enough—certainly as much as Firefox. Nevertheless, Microsoft modified search after Google also complained to the European Commission. Security competitors/partners also complained to the EC, leading to other Windows Vista changes.
European Commission Home Page
The newer situation is considerably more problematic for Microsoft, because the European Commission is likely to reach a decision around the time Windows 7 is certified gold. The EC is taking suggestions from many parties, including Microsoft competitors, now.
In a statement, the EC expressed misgivings about Microsoft’s Windows 7 E plans:
At the level of both computer manufacturers and retail sales, the Commission’s Statement of Objections (SO) suggested that consumers should be provided with a genuine choice of browsers…it is particularly important to ensure consumer choice through the computer manufacturer channel…the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.
Limiting EC’s Options
Even if the European Commission demands more or something different, Microsoft has established a framework that should allow a stay of any remedy for appeal. No one should doubt Microsoft’s primary objective: The simultaneous worldwide launch of Windows 7 in October. Dave Heiner, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel explained in a blog post:
The worldwide launch of Windows 7 is fast approaching, but a pending legal case raises concerns about the sufficiency of competition among the Web browsers that are available to Windows users in Europe…We’re committed to making Windows 7 available in Europe at the same time that it launches in the rest of the world, but we also must comply with European competition law as we launch the product…this is a big step for Microsoft. But we’re committed to launching Windows 7 on time in Europe, so we need to address the legal realities in Europe, including the risk of large fines.
Microsoft’s approach clears way for Windows 7’s launch, while also drawing a line before the European Commission. Will trustbusters step over it? The answer may have to do with how much devil there is in the details. Will Microsoft remove all Internet Explorer code?
Dave Heiner writes that “the E versions of Windows 7 will continue to provide all of the underlying platform functionality of the operating system—applications designed for Windows will run just as well on an E version as on other versions of Windows 7.”
But how? Will IE really be completely stripped from Windows 7? If so, why hasn’t Microsoft provided developers with technical information related to browser functionality and third-party applications? It’s the sticky that could yet adhere tougher sanctions to Microsoft. If IE is fully removed, the EC will have a tougher time asking Microsoft to do much more. Surely, OEMs and other Microsoft partners will tell the European Commission that enough is enough.
Larry Seltzer rightly observed in comment: “This is a great solution for MS. How important is IE to them anyway? It’s free! A Europe full of Windows users running Firefox is a Europe full of Windows users.”
Competitive Landscape
Opera already is complaining about Microsoft’s move, which isn’t surprising. The EC’s proposed plan would have assured Opera free distribution with every copy of Windows sold in Europe. Microsoft’s alternative actually gives nothing to competitors. Taking something away doesn’t give something instead.
Commenter NickH makes an astute observation:
For Windows bought at retail, Microsoft will ship a big stack of DVD with IE on, which the store clerk will hand to you for free.This disc is going to have all sorts of other stuff on it (all the Live client software for a start). As this is NOT bundled, Microsoft don’t have to care about antitrust issues, and they can do what they want. It’s feasible this might even drive up usages of some of this stuff.
I think, ironically, Opera is the big loser here. They don’t have the means to flood retails with free CDs, and they don’t have the means to pay OEMs to pre-installl it either. My guess is that Google will happily pay a couple of cents per PC to get Chrome re-installed.
By distributing CDs with IE and other Microsoft software, the company gets some bundling benefits without tying software to Windows. It’s a brilliant business response to companies practicing competition by litigation.
My question: Why stop with Europe? Dave puts Microsoft’s IE-less approach in context of Windows Principles announced nearly three years ago. If Microsoft is so committed to these principles and if IE removal doesn’t affect operating system functions, why not make the “E” version available worldwide? Dave emphasizes the importance of choice. OK, then, give all customers more choice of browsers.
What do you think Microsoft should do?
Do you have a business story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.
Now Microsoft can make an entire DVD of free software to attack different areas they have suffered from in bundling rulings, and just give it away free at retail, including IE8, Live Essentials, Morrow, Windows Media Player, a PDF viewer, a PDF printer, Photosynth, WorldWideTelescope, and more. If Microsoft is really anxious, they could include Paint.NET and some express programing tools. Of course, all this is up to Microsoft in how far they go, so we’ll probably just see the first two products on a CD.
It’s not just about the browser. The browser provides a seamless link to lucrative online properties. That’s why Google and Microsoft are both in the browser business: to get a captive audience for their websites. If Microsoft unbundles IE from Windows 7, then they are also conceding this link to Bing and other Microsoft online sites.
What would be interesting is the flip side: if the EC or the US government also decide to fight Google.
@Yert and Joe,
Regarding this issue of putting all the previously bundled stuff on a DVD thats available at point of sale, I initially saw that as all part of a clever move by Microsoft.
I have reason to believe the Commission is wise to being sidetracked like this – and I fully expect them to take Microsoft to task for doing it. They arguement is (or will be), this is tying by another name, because the DVDs go out through the same distribution channel as the product, and that channel is not available to Opera, Mozilla, Google, etc.
So, expect that if Microsoft put a IE-free retail box out there, that the EC will outlaw free CDs on the shelf next to it.
(I’m not saying I agree with such action, only that its going to happen).
The ever colourful Tommy “Sour Grape” Vinje at the splendidly euphamistically named ECIS has issued a press statement on the matter:
(http://www.ecis.eu/news/documents/12JuneECISStatement.pdf)
It’s glorious, and would be even funnier if he wasnt an intervenor in the case.
They are proposing that Windows Update be modified to push the ballot screen to all existing customers.
“Commitments are needed to avoid circumvention of the illegal IE tie by tying other Microsoft products such as Silverlight”
WTF does that even mean? The ECIS seems oddly troubled by Silverlight.
This “less choice” bunk just proves the EU’s insincerity in this issue. If the offense is tying surely removing the tying is the remedy. In any event, the vast majority of consumers get their Windows from OEMs and they can make the decisions of what choice users will have and there’s plenty of competition among OEMs
I don’t think any action performed in 2009 will remedy the stifling of the emerging browser market in 1996.
Let’s also not forget that in addition to bundling, the big impact of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was to make it free, thus derailing Netscape’s business model of selling browsers.
If i read Opera’s claims correctly, the ‘health’ of the browser market is at the core of their complain.
Going free is a one way street – browsers can’t turn back and become software with end-user monetary purchase value attached again, therefore an Opera or Firefox on it’s own without a search provider or other such sugar-daddy is not viable no matter what the EC does with bundling.
The previous story here is all about retail software sales being dead. No one will buy retail software. People will buy a PC, but they know anything beyond the core box is just a rip-off (extra $30.00 cables, virus checkers, etc.). So no one will buy these extra DVDs. Given one of these IE less computers, when you get it home, how do you connect to the internet to get software? Whole thing sounds stupid. Suspect the EU will just fine MS another billion dollars for being such assholes.
I am amazed at how most Bloggers (not you of course, or mary jo for that matter) fail to understand that this measure is a brilliant one from Microsoft.
This is what they are ensuring to happen:
1.-Windows 7 Ships on time and nothing the EU does can prevent that, even if they do continue with the case. the reason is simple, Microsoft now got proof of cooperation, compliance and even what any lawyer could go and call “goodwill message” because now any other company can bid for inclusion of their browsers with Windows 7 with the OEM’s.
There is no way the EU can deny those facts and they know it. another argumentative point microsoft gets is that the EU rulings in this case was to cause a leveled playfied for competitors. thing that is archived by opening bids to browser companies and to OEM since the OEM will obtain extra gain from those bids.
So, there is simple no way the EU can argue against it because now Microsoft will be able to count with OEM on the side saying” hey, EU, this is a great thing, now you are taking away profits and gain from us”
And even if they tried, they are not going to be able to archive to wreck the launch since it is only 2 months away from RTM and then the whole thing is no longer a Microsoft issue since the ball will be now with the OEM’s
2.-Sideways benefits and stimulus for the bidding to happen since the only competitor would be Google and even Google would not be able outbid Microsoft if they now can bid to include not only IE8 but Windows Live Essentials (that include not only programs but important plugins and dependencies) and Windows Media Player. the other reason is that this issue will be resolve individually with each OEM and the proceedings while not entirely private will not be filed and reported in the moment but months after.
This is what they know it could happen but does not exceed the benefits from the main 2 points above:
1.- The EU goes crazy and decides to fine Microsoft out of the blue post Windows 7 release.
it will not matter. now Microsoft can even appeal bluntly as they now got weapons to the defend themselves against the EU, this will cause the legal process to go for awhile and even if they get fined and lose, they can do another appeal on the amount and even if they ultimately have to pay, the amount would be less that than the original EU goal and no less than a year from now would have passed…..
2.- in the case they lose against the EU, they can give out quite a battle against the EU and the former will have a hard time raising hell to microsoft for the next Windows release as Microsoft will be even more prepared for it.
But i find it hard to believe the EU will be able to win this and even if they do, it will not really matter in the end since this is about timing, window of opportunity and that if the EU follows with this they will be shown in a bad light and will receive a lot of pressure and negative publicity while doing so.
So my point is that if Microsoft Wins this is a double win, if they lose in this it will still be a win in the long run.
Microsoft’s move was absolutely brilliant. It constrains and delays the ECIS and assures a consistent world-wide launch of Windows 7. EU OEMs will surely include browsers and perhaps IE 8 will be among them – so consumers will not be injured, or inconvenienced.
The ECIS is particularly concerned about SilverLight 3, and they should be. There is significant revelation available in their concern and Microsoft’s willingness to remove IE entirely – by doing so, Microsoft has declared that the browser is dead and indeed it is and by their concern, the ECIS has communicated its agreement.
Certainly, all future applications will use the public networks and the Internet, but the future is not ‘in’ the browser. The browser is confining and will very rapidly give way to rich applications which leverage SL 3 and the balance of the IDE designed to include it. Browsers will be relegated to finding and delivering the RIA’s built for desktops linked in not one, but many clouds – entire profiles will reside there and desktop applications, being light on the front end (SL 3), will come ‘from’ the browser. In better cases, (Live.com) entire user profiles will be available on any Windows computer connected to the net.
The ECIS knows this. As an example of what I mean, I remember well how freaked out the Europeans were at the Casablanca conference in 42. The American President, Roosevelt, announced that only an Axis “Unconditional Surrender” would be acceptable. The Brits lost their minds, but in a single sentence, the American President said: “We are going to win, this war!” Goebbels, in a tip of his hat, acknowledged the President’s statement to be the most masterful of propagandistic comments ever uttered and privately, it was he who first identified what the American President meant – a statement the allies eventually made true.
Microsoft, by pulling IE from Windows 7, and the ECIS by sweating SL 3, has just done the same thing and both have declared the browser war to be lost – and all of them will be made to surrender unconditionally – to Rich Internet Applications against which HTML 5 has not a chance.
Actually all Microsoft is doing is enraging the EU regulators. A bit like spitting in a policeman’s face. Not a good or wise move.
What the EU will probably enforce is making Microsoft ship rival browsers with Windows 7 or offering them through Automatic Update. Watch IE marketshare drop like a rock then.
Why does everyone assume that Microsoft is able to choose it’s own punishment and what makes you think that changing something now can make 10 years of breaking the law suddenly OK?
Microsoft does not decide what their remedy is and the EC does not care about public opinion so whatever Microsoft do now has no effect on the actual judgement.
If anything, it is likely to make the judgement worse.
The EC have the power to ban the sale of Windows 7 for as long as they see fit, so I am not sure why the MS fanbois are cheering about how clever they are being. Like Avro says, they are just spitting in the policeman’s face. It looks great to your friends, but wait until you get back to the station…
The EC is not stupid and they see all the games that MS tries to play. They have plenty of time to come to a conclusion, they do not have to make sure they have everything resolved before MS wants to release Windows 7. If they choose they can delay the W7 release until after Christmas.
I am going to enjoy listening to the same fanbois cry when the EC comes out with their final judgement. Maybe after that judgement we can get them to ban Silverlight and stop Microsoft from bundling anything. They can turn Windows into some sort of moldy carcass.
The EU will most certainly impose a record breaking fine on Microsoft and the company will delay the release of Windows 7 in Europe until after December, 2009 – as it adds the means for OEMs to determine what to add to ballot screens. EU OEMs will scream bloody murder and only they and their customers will be injured. It will be quite the mess and do nothing to benefit end users.
Silverlight will not be banned as it is not bundled and would be included in any click-once delivery of an RIA. It is offered as an optional update within Windows Updates. Interestingly, Adobe FLASH “IS” bundled with Windows Vista and Windows 7 – I don’t hear any complaints about that… Third parties are and always have been able to access Windows users via Windows and Microsoft Updates – including coordinating the distribution of security patches and optional software.
And I say again… I’d happily pay double for Windows to see the company tell the EU to pound sand (or piss up a rope – either is fine). There are many things worth more than money and many men would rather live under an overpass than bend our knees before the EU (or any governing body).
@Billybob,
I’m more pro-Microsoft than against – I hope my opinions are based on reason, but you and I don’t agree on some things. Anyway, I expect Microsoft to get fined, though I’m not sure it will be setting a new records. Either way I wont be crying – its not my money, and it makes for interesting times.
What I do object to is the very confused messages coming from the EC. Their January statement of findings found that IE was illegally bundled, yet they also say that the act of unbundling reduceds customer choice. There is clearly a realization on their part that the browser market depends of web based distribution, and thus a browser is needed part of the OS, yet a complete failure to see that this very same means of distribution actually provides plenty of choice.
It does seem a case of having your cake and eating it.
I would like to see this as a remedy….
#1 A modest fine, of around €100m, for the bundling, which isnt all bad
#2 A bigger fine of around €500m, for poor standard compliance.
#3 A ballot screen incorporated in Windows. The browsers included to be determined by the EC. By default the browsers are downloaded (IE included), but OEMs can pre-install any they choose (as they already can).
#4 Active engagement by the EC with Microsoft to explorer other bundled items. Every other OS can do this, there is clearly so benefit to it. Microsoft has the benefit and burden of a monopoly, but the current regime basically requires them to walk through a minefield, and greater clarity of whats required would benefit everyone. Microsoft have previously asked for this kind of clarity, to which Kroes essentially said “thats for you to figure out” – thats just not acceptable.
@Lloyd
Microsoft had better be very careful that it doesn’t lose the EU market. If so it could well become just like GM, another welfare basketcase.
Avro,
Ironic, GM does well in the EEA as compared to the US. It is highly improbable that Microsoft would end up in similar circumstances. GM was losing buckets of money long before the global financial took it to court. Enormous legacy and labor costs destroyed GM in the North American market. Retiree healthcare and other benefits and unsustainable labor costs being the chief reasons. Loans at the tax payers expense only delayed the inevitable, but it was worth a try as the costs of a government sponsored bankruptcy were well understood – 110 billion vice what most estimated to be 75 billion in loans.
Since the benefits are federally guaranteed, the tax payers have always been more exposed than the company was and it is simply very sad that for so long big labor has been allowed to grow with government and operate as it has.
More properly, we had all better be careful to keep government small and prevent them from protecting companies like GM and the unions and lobbyists that work with them to the detriment of the people. Government regulation works, but works best when it establishes standards – as for safety and fuel economy – it does a poor job of creating wealth.
The EU specifically has far bigger problems than the US, Microsoft or GM… the EU’s native populations are shrinking and in thirty years, it will become an Islamic theocracy. Drive around and take note of the old fortresses.. many of them were built to stave off the Islamic invasion of central Europe – man’s longest war.
Hope i am understanding this right – goal is reduction of the so-called market domination MS has due to that fact that IE is bundled in Windows (i believe that is the core issue – the bundling is stifling). So why should the EU be upset when MS complies with that intent? Surely MS shouldn’t be on the hook to help promote competitor’s products with the menu thing.
Those fines are way too small. They are for crimes committed over the last 10 years, even $60 million per year is peanuts. The fine this time will be much higher, especially considering that Microsoft is often up in front of the EC for other such crimes and the fact that they normally work against the EC rather than with them. I think that somewhere in the order of 1 billion is more like it.
As far as asking for clarity on how exactly they can break the law in the future, Neelie Kroes is right. If Microsoft’s lawyers cannot work out what is legal and what is not then maybe they should give up. Just do not abuse your monopoly, it is fairly straightforward.
No other companies need special time with Neelie to work out how they can not break the law, why is Microsoft so special?
Once again, it is not for Microsoft to come up with their own remedy. That is why some things might appear inconsistent to you.
Why on Earth would you think that this childish move makes it so that the EC cannot prevent W7 being launched when Microsoft wants? Microsoft is still liable to any remedy that the EC decides, even if that means that W7 is late.
Well,lets see who is right in 2 months shall we?. if you are right i paypal you a beer or something..
Amazing how you know with such certainty everything from the future of RIA frameworks all the way to the future of an entire continent.
Does your gift extend to predicting the outcome of major sporting events, cause i think we can make some serious cash out of you.
@BillyBob,
Please note that my fines totalled €600m, and if you express that in $ as you did, you need a conversion factor of 1.4, so I am suggesting something like $840m – not very far from your $1billion. So, I dont think that there is a fundamental difference in our views on this matter.
Much of the rest of what you say I don’t agree with. You seem to have painted me as totally pro-Microsoft, whereas I actually think they probably deserves whats coming (depends exactly what this is, of course).
I DONT see it as Microsoft’s fault that this situation has been allowed to continue for 13 years. It took the EC over 12 months to come up with their statement of objections, simply becuase the matter is not as simple as you would like to make it out (Mozilla has clearly HUGELY BENEFITTED from the very cheap distribution channel created by know IE is on every copy of WIndows sold). My suggestions about pre-emptive engagement are not intended to favour Microsoft, but reform the competition law into something actually effective.
Competition Law is just the same as any law. It is written down in black and white and any lawyer can give Microsoft advice on what that means.
Every other citizen of the EU seems to do OK without having their own special adviser on what they can get away with.
It is a bit rich for Microsoft to ask for greater communication and advice from the EC when they do not even bother to turn up for the oral hearing in this case, and every time they do say something, they are trying to undermine the EC.
I originally meant € instead of $.
Actually, the EC is awash with various different advice centres.
Even in this regard to advice on competition law, it would seem the EC agrees with me, and not you:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/competition/firms/l26112_en.htm
> It is written down in black and white and any lawyer can give Microsoft advice on what that means
Its expressed as case law, and its ever evolving, and open to judicial interpretation. It most certainly isn’t black and white. In this particular case, the EC cite the previous case against Microsoft, from 2005, in making their judgement. How were Microsoft supposed to interpret case law not even made during the period 1996 to 2005?
> I originally meant € instead of $.
I suppose that was in black and white too.
The EC says that it will answer NOVEL questions about the facts of law. The black and white that I am talking about are Articles 81 and 82.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art82_en.html
Did Microsoft have a specific question that was refused or did they want special guidance? My guess is they wanted a special envoy who could resolve them of all of their sins and responsibilities.
Although to be honest though, the way Microsoft act, I would not answer their questions either.
I am quite familiar with the EC treaty, though thank you for posting those links for the benefit of those who are not. I also think that my comments about the utter dependency on case law are manefestly underscored by the fact that this treaty scopes of who competition law in under 400 words.
The aspect regarding the bundling is summarised as this:
“making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts”
Though it is no doubt clear in your mind that placing IE in Windows contravenes this law, a very credible argument can be made that supplying a browser absolutely does have a connection to sale of desktop operating system. Another credible argument can be made that as no-one is required to use IE, there is no “supplementary obligation”. Please don’t misunderstand this as implying any agreement to those arguments on my part, only that they are reasonable questions, that can require interpretation of the case law in novel ways.
To get back to my own views of this particular case, I think all this discussion about the bundling aspect is a red herring anyway, and that its quite possible that the EC will even find that it has no problem with that per se. What they are going to nail Microsofts balls to the wall for is this:
“limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers”
The **real** reason that consumers are limited in their choice of browsers is little to do with IEs inclusion in Windows, and everything to do with distorting standards in the dominate browser – put simple, you aren’t free to choose your browser if only one of them works with the web site you want to access.
Unbundling IE from Windows doesnt fix this problem, ordering Microsoft to ship a standards compliant browser might be slow to implement, so the rememdy is to require Microsoft to ship other peoples (far more compliant) browsers.
whatever, do you wish to debate the issues relevant to the stories published on this blog, or simply continue to snipe with personal attacks and gross generalizations?
You’ve attacked and insulted individuals and Americans in general here and in the past, without offering counter arguments of substance.
The available facts are clear. GM did and does well in foreign markets and has lost and continues to lose billions in North America. Its labor and retiree benefits costs are the major contributing factors. I think it terribly important to understand the facts and the relationships which exist based upon them. Otherwise good people risk being led astray by populist nonsense as broadcast by a compliant media.
Similarly, it is public fact that the native populations making up the EU nations are and have been in sharp and increasing decline, at the same time millions of foreigners of largely Islamic faith, are moving to the continent. If this trend continues, those of Islamic faith will be able to legally vote in those favoring a government based upon Islamic theocratic ideals. Many suggest that it is already too late for the peoples of Europe to reverse this trend and the inevitable political and socioeconomic consequences.
Personally, and as a matter of public policy, I reason we Americans need to prepare for less access to viable European markets now – rather than wait.
I very much wish to debate technological issues – but with you i’ve given up. Scratch the surface and what do you get? Rubbish like “architecture based on serial ASCII streams that use one of 3 data channels”… lol sorry i had to put that in here somewhere cause that’s priceless.
So when it comes to yourself i’ll just be happy pointing out how half-baked pop knowledge is a very very dangerous thing. Next stop, scary sites like http://www.thereligionofpeace.com – hence of course i will not discuss political issues with you. (or anyone for that matter)
because of the time frame my friend.. go check out how many days they need just to put up a new complain or fine. even if they do so, they would need to schedule a new hearing and then they would need to deliberate on that hearing and issue the fine. if they go with the fine directly it would still be 7 to 15 days after Microsoft made its move. microsoft would have 7 to 15 days to enter an appeal, etc, etc..
so, no way they can do it in less than 2 months just like that.. the first hearing alone (that ended being shot down by microsoft because it was not worth it) too a month from being announced to the point where it was shot down and then they refused a new hearing.
I am from Mexico. i know very very well how legal bureaucracy and politics work..i also know a thing or two about international law. so i just don’t see they can pull of a restriction for the release of Windows 7 in the EU and have a judge approve it…. you are not only damaging microsoft if you do that. you damage lots of EU retail companies, EU OEM administrators and the general economy of the EU with a move like that.. the whole point and legal base of the EC is to level of competition in the EU.. a restriction on the release would not pass without a huge scorn from lots of EU companies and consumers.
so my point is that the EC can input any fine their heart content find ok. my point is that they don’t have enough time for it to happen before Windows 7 gets released on time. and whatever you think about the power of action the EC got, they are still accountable and will prefer to wait in order to put a fine post Windows 7 that handling the kind of political heat and private and public scorn they would get if they issue a restriction for Windows 7 launch. something i doubt that they got enough time given how legal bureaucracy and process works..
but if the EC manages to issue a restriction to windows7 launch that sticks..it would be a huge mistake that will cost the EU more money than what they could get with just fining Microsoft post Windows 7 launch.
so the economical logical way to go for the EC is just to play dumb while things cool off. wait for Windows 7 to launch and they just issue a outrageous fine and start another 2 year trial game with Microsoft just for the sake of it. that as a simple way to look as the EC actually does something and justify their existence..
my bet is that they will do just that and for the time being concentrate on their Intel case where they can get to obtain billions on a faster time frame given that such case more clear that can actually be won or settle way faster.
The case is not due for the final judgment for another 2 months. Microsoft is trying to preempt any decision. Like you say, things move slowly but they are not finished yet so there is no need for a new complaint.
So the EC can dictate what they like as a remedy and Microsoft has to comply.
Microsoft are the only ones who will suffer if W7 cannot be released on time, so they should start working with the EC rather than constantly trying to play stupid games.
The point of the final remedy is to stop this happening in the future, not just to fine Microsoft. That is why just removing IE is not the answer.
Also why do people think that the EC cares about public opinion? They are not media celebrities or elected by anyone.