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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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)

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 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.