Risk
3/6/2013
10:22 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl

Microsoft stopped offering browser-choice screen to European Windows consumers, in violation of 2009 agreement with antitrust regulators.

Microsoft was fined 561 million euros ($732 million) Wednesday for a "serious infringement" of its agreement with European Union antitrust regulators.

"Today, the commission adopted a decision sanctioning Microsoft for its failure to comply with the legally binding commitments which it made to the commission," said Joaquin Almunia, vice president of the European Commission and the commissioner responsible for its competition policies, at a Wednesday press conference in Brussels.

Specifically, Microsoft was sanctioned for breaking an agreement that it made with the European Commission, which is the executive body of the European Union, in response to EU antitrust concerns over Microsoft tying its Windows operating system to its Internet Explorer browser. In 2009, the products respectively commanded 90% of the operating system market share in Europe and 55% of the browser market.

[ For the latest on Java vulnerabilities, see Java Emergency Patch Slaps McRAT Infections. ]

To settle those antitrust concerns, Microsoft in December 2009 agreed that until 2014, it would create a "choice screen" in Windows for European users, which would allow them to select the browser they wanted. According to EU officials, between March and November 2010, people downloaded 84 million browsers via the choice screen.

But the Wednesday fine against Microsoft was triggered by the company dropping the browser-choice screen in later versions of Windows. "Although Microsoft did make the choice screen available in March 2010, the choice screen was not rolled out as required following the launch of Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in May 2011," said Almunia. "As a consequence, during more than a year, until July 2012, around 15.3 million users did not see the choice screen as they should have."

Almunia said the steep fine -- which under EU law could have been up to 10% of Microsoft's annual revenue, meaning $7.4 billion -- reflected both the gravity of Microsoft's offense and its duration, but was also meant to serve as a deterrent to other businesses. "If companies agree to offer commitments which then become legally binding, they must do what they have committed to do or face the consequences -- namely, the imposition of sanctions," he said.

A statement issued Wednesday by Microsoft said the company took full responsibility for failing to continue offering a browser-choice screen in Windows, and said a technical problem was to blame for the lapse. "We take full responsibility for the technical error that caused this problem and have apologized for it," read Microsoft's statement. "We provided the commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake -- or anything similar -- in the future."

The EU's approach to consumer protection mirrors that practiced by the Federal Trade Commission, which lacks the power to fine first-time offenders. Instead, the FTC seeks legally binding settlements in which the alleged offenders agree to discontinue their violations of consumer protection laws.

Likewise, rather than levying fines, the European Union often first seeks legally binding commitments from a company to alter its regulation-infringing ways. Such was the approach with Microsoft, and Almunia said it had led to the desired effect: increased competition in the Web browser market. "Of course, the browser market has evolved a lot since then -- and fortunately so," he said. "Users can now easily choose, download and install the browser they prefer, which was precisely the objective of the commission. Easy access to different browsers encourages companies to continue to innovate to provide users with the best products."

Irrespective of the effect that the EU's antitrust action had on the browser market, there's clearly been a browser renaissance in recent years, with Google's Chrome, Mozilla's Firefox, and Apple's Safari now providing strong competition against IE in terms of features, security and reliability.

Attend Interop Las Vegas May 6-10 and learn the emerging trends in information risk management and security. Use Priority Code MPIWK by March 22 to save an additional $200 off the early bird discount on All Access and Conference Passes. Join us in Las Vegas for access to 125+ workshops and conference classes, 300+ exhibiting companies, and the latest technology. Register today!

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
lbell284
50%
50%
lbell284,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/12/2013 | 1:50:14 AM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
I still can't believe the people that run Europe think the people they govern are so stupid they can't figure out how to download another browser. That makes no logical sense to me and never has.
SeniorMoment
50%
50%
SeniorMoment,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/8/2013 | 10:04:59 AM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
It has long been clear that Europe would not treat Microsoft as leniently as President G. W. Bush's administration did in basically dropping the Justice anti-trust suit against Microsoft, so the size of the penalty comes as no surprise.
PoliTecs
50%
50%
PoliTecs,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/7/2013 | 8:32:35 PM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
Hey, you freaking Euro blow-hards! Why don't you go create your won damn Microsoft! You not using your time and money to see a dentist so do something with that extra time!

I have a better idea! Your all socialists, use Linux!! What a bunch of wining ass little bitches you Eros are... talk about cutting your nose off despite your bad teeth.
AustinIT
50%
50%
AustinIT,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/7/2013 | 2:31:59 PM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
What I find odd is that a contentious regulation was put into effect and virtually no one noticed that MS dropped the Ballot screen for a very prolonged period of time.

Was the original gripe by the EU (as a whole) just not that important enough for them to monitor?

Something doesn't seem quite right here.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/7/2013 | 4:48:09 AM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
Word from later in the day is that Google and Opera tipped off the EU. Getting pretty chippy these days between Mountain View and Redmond.
Deirdre Blake
50%
50%
Deirdre Blake,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/6/2013 | 5:50:16 PM
re: EU Fines Microsoft $732 Million In Browser Brawl
Yowza! Someone's head will roll at Microsoft, if it hasn't already.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4907
Published: 2014-07-11
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in share/pnp/application/views/kohana_error_page.php in PNP4Nagios before 0.6.22 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a parameter that is not properly handled in an error message.

CVE-2014-4908
Published: 2014-07-11
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in PNP4Nagios through 0.6.22 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the URI used for reaching (1) share/pnp/application/views/kohana_error_page.php or (2) share/pnp/application/views/template.php, leading to improper hand...

CVE-2014-2963
Published: 2014-07-10
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in group/control_panel/manage in Liferay Portal 6.1.2 CE GA3, 6.1.X EE, and 6.2.X EE allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) _2_firstName, (2) _2_lastName, or (3) _2_middleName parameter.

CVE-2014-3310
Published: 2014-07-10
The File Transfer feature in WebEx Meetings Client in Cisco WebEx Meetings Server and WebEx Meeting Center does not verify that a requested file was an offered file, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a modified request, aka Bug IDs CSCup62442 and CSCup58463.

CVE-2014-3311
Published: 2014-07-10
Heap-based buffer overflow in the file-sharing feature in WebEx Meetings Client in Cisco WebEx Meetings Server and WebEx Meeting Center allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted data, aka Bug IDs CSCup62463 and CSCup58467.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marilyn Cohodas and her guests look at the evolving nature of the relationship between CIO and CSO.