Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Dear Microsoft: Don't meddle with Firefox
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> On every "patch Tuesday" the latest roll-up of bug fixes are
>> pushed out to every Windows PC (that has automatic update
>> turned on). All well-and-good, unless you had .NET 3.5
>> installed along with Firefox.
>>
>> Earlier this year Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack
>> 1 was pushed out to all relevant PCs. All well-and-good.
>> Except that a hidden portion of the update added the
>> Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant Firefox extension.
>>
>> Without notification, without permission.
>>
>> The .NET extensions allow (amongst other more 'reasonable'
>> things) for websites to install any software of their
>> choosing on your PC. Hang on; didn't we all switch to
>> Firefox to avoid such behaviour?
> `----
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25485/1240/
>
> Microsoft may be Firefox's worst vulnerability
>
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1716
>
> Still a bunch of criminals. There is no "new Microsoft".
I read the odd, apologetic statement in that article, that
Microsoft does not understand the impact of not allowing easily
uninstallation of a feature not requested by the user. It is
readily apparent that this is wrong, and I sense a reason of
deliberateness on their part. However, it is not the first time
that the company did something that was not requested by the
user. Microsoft has engaged in uncompetitive practises to ensure
that their proprietary product is well entrenched in the market
place:
[quote]
One of Microsoft’s .NET program managers acknowledged that “[i]t
simply doesn’t make business sense for Microsoft to invest in a
technology that d[is]intermediates [its] most popular platform,
the Windows operating system.” [169] As one analyst summarized
the issue:
The Web browser is probably the most frequently used category
of software in the world. But in recent years, the browser most
people rely on—Microsoft’s Internet Explorer—has been stagnant,
offering very few new features.
This is a common pattern with Microsoft. The company is
aggressive about improving its software when it first enters a
market. But once it crushes its competitors and establishes an
effective monopoly, as it has in Web browsers, Microsoft seems to
switch off significant innovation. [170]
Yet despite Microsoft’s lack of innovation in the browser market,
it has been able to maintain its enormous market share. [171]
Even strikingly superior web browsers like Opera and Mozilla’s
Firefox have had great difficulty in gaining widespread adoption.
After having been starved of innovation by Microsoft for years,
technology-savvy jumped at the chance to adopt Firefox upon its
release, and reviewers generally identify Firefox (and other
browsers including Opera) as far superior to Internet Explorer. [172]
Yet, despite their superiority, no major OEM has ever distributed
any of these alternative, innovative browsers. [173] Thus, while
IE is guaranteed ubiquity as a result of Microsoft’s tying
practice, rival browsers face high barriers to entry even if they
are technically superior.
Beyond their popularity with a limited set of sophisticated
consumers, alternative browsers have not been able to make
significant inroads. [174] This means that most consumers have
gone without features like tabbed browsing and improved security
features for years longer than they would have done in a
competitive marketplace. [175] Microsoft’s persistently high
market share despite its noticeably inferior product is proof
that OEMs are not selecting web browsers based on consumer demand.
Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct in the browser market has
also firmly entrenched Internet Explorer as the super-dominant
web browser in the workplace. Among other things, during the
years after Microsoft exterminated Netscape and before Firefox
came on the scene, many corporate information technology
departments built applications and company intranets on top of
proprietary Microsoft technologies in Internet Explorer. These
companies would face significant barriers to switching to a
different browser today. [176]
VI. CONCLUSION
Microsoft’s conduct over the last two decades has demonstrated
Microsoft’s willingness and ability to engage in unlawful conduct
to protect and extend its core monopolies. This conduct has
caused real harm to consumers, who continue to pay high prices
and use lower quality products than would have prevailed in a
competitive market.
By understanding Microsoft’s history of anticompetitive conduct,
developers, consumer groups, and government authorities will be
better equipped to recognize current and future Microsoft
misconduct at an early stage and intervene to prevent Microsoft
from using tactics other than competition on the merits.
ECIS remains hopeful that the European Commission’s latest
Statement of Objections addressing Microsoft’s misconduct will
finally mark the beginning of the end of Microsoft’s two decades
of anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm.
176. See Sara Grant, Lessons from the Browser Wars: Q&A with
Pai-Ling Yin, HARV. BUS. SCHOOL WORKING KNOWLEDGE, Apr. 10, 2006,
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5288.html (detailing corporate
managers’ unwillingness to switch their companies to Firefox).
[/quote]
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
> Recent:
>
> Microsoft Sabotaging Firefox With Sneaky .NET Updates?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Sabotage may be a strong choice of word, but it immediately
>> came to mind with the news of Microsoft's latest .NET
>> update.
>>
>> The Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, unleashed
>> in February, forces an undisclosed Firefox extension on
>> Windows users, called Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant
>> 1.03, and it does so without asking the users permission.
> `----
>
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/31/microsoft-sabotaging-firefox-with-sneaky-net-updates/
>
>
> Microsoft Sabotaging Firefox With Sneaky Add-Ons
>
> http://slashdot.org/submission/1010693/Microsoft-Sabotaging-Firefox-With-Sneaky-Add-Ons
>
> Microsoft Installs Firefox Add-ons Sans User Consent
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Here at Techgeist, we do not like it when software does
>> stuff to other software without asking. The problems are
>> made that much worse when it's the operating system doing
>> the dirty work. So we are all pretty angry at Microsoft
>> right now. As part of a service pack for the .Net Framework,
>> which they rolled out as a critical update via Windows
>> Update, Microsoft also installed the ".Net Framework
>> Assistant" add-on onto users' Firefox installations.
> `----
>
> http://techgeist.net/2009/05/microsoft-installs-firefox-add-ons-sans-user-consent/
>
> Microsoft Update Quietly Installs Firefox Extension
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component
>> installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly
>> installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users
>> surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser.
> `----
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft_update_quietly_insta.html?wprss=securityfix
>
> Related:
>
> Ten years of Mozilla
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Ten years ago, Netscape announced it would release to the
>> public the code of its flag ship product, Netscape
>> Communicator 5, making it an open source product. The action
>> came at a time when Netscape was still the dominant web
>> browser: 65 million users and 90% market share in the
>> educational segment according to Netscape's own accounts.
>> But Microsoft's Internet Explorer was grabbing share at a
>> furious pace thanks to it being free (at a time Netscape was
>> about$30) and specially the fact that it came bundled with
>> Windows 95 and upcoming Windows 98 (released on June 1998).
>>
> `----
>
> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/01/ten-years-of-mozilla/
>
> Gates deposition videos
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Boies: Do you remember that in January, 1996, a lot of OEMs
>> were bundling non-Microsoft browsers?
>>
>> Gates: I'm not sure.
>>
>> Boies: What were the non-Microsoft browsers that you were
>> concerned about in January of 1996?
>>
>> Gates: What's the question? You're trying to get me to
>> recall what other browsers I was thinking about when I wrote
>> that sentence?
>>
>> Boies: No, because you've told me that you don't know what
>> you were thinking about when you wrote that sentence.
>>
>> Gates: Right.
>>
>> Boies: What I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what
>> non-Microsoft browsers you were concerned about in January
>> of 1996. If it had been only one, I probably would have used
>> the name of it. Instead I seem to be using the term
>> non-Microsoft browsers. My question is what non-Microsoft
>> browsers were you concerned about in January of 1996?
>>
>> Gates: I'm sure -- what's the question? Is it -- are you
>> asking me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you
>> asking me about?
>>
>> Boies: I'm asking you about January of 1996.
>>
>> Gates: That month?
>>
>> Boies: Yes, sir.
>>
>> Gates: And what about it?
>>
>> Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about
>> in January of 1996?
>>
>> Gates: I don't know what you mean "concerned."
>>
>> Boies: What is it about the word "concerned" that you don't
>> understand?
>>
>> Gates: I'm not sure what you mean by it.
> `----
>
> http://wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/02/gates_depositio.php
Gates' deposition reads much like Snit FUD, which recently
increased with considerable intensity in COLA. These 128 poster
quotes give insight into Snit's trolling:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/05367cd2cb7d03a5
> Gates Deposition Audio and Video
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Here is our local copy of the depositions of Bill Gates in
>> the Microsoft anti-trust suit. We did our best to convert
>> the original Windows Media files into an Open format, ogg.
>> Your webmaster is responsible for the video transcoding, the
>> audio-only files are contributed by a Groklaw member that
>> requested to stay anonymous.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=GatesDepo
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> From: Bill Gates
>> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1989 9:44 AM
>> To: Bob Muglia (Exchange); Jon DeVaan; Steven
>> Sinofsky
>> Cc: Paul Mariz
>> Subject: Office rendering
>>
>> One thing we have got to change is our strategy -- allowing
>> Office documents to be rendered very well by OTHER PEOPLES
>> BROWSERS is one of the most destructive things we could do
>> to the company.
>>
>> We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure
>> that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
>> capabilities.
>>
>> Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case
>> where Office has to to destroy Windows.
> `----
>
> http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf
--
HPT
|
|
