EU Antitrust Law and package repositories?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Rather than highjack a thread about package repositories which suddenly reminded me of something, I'll be polite and post my rambling madness here.

Remember how Microsoft got (is getting?) in big trouble for packaging software with Windows, thus "harming competition", and they were ordered (forced) to stop packaging said software? The whole thing was quite ridiculous, given that a 3rd party could create a new desktop environment for Windows if they really wanted to; if that happened, would Microsoft have to sell only the Windows kernel in the big box, then leave it up to the poor user to download / install the desktop environment, web browser, etc?
Needless to say, I'm not with the EU on that one.

This brings to mind a question: Where does that whole package manager idea go with the EU's ridiculously inconsistent "rules" regarding packaging software with the OS (hurting competition)?
Seems to me they'd have a field day if a distro like this started making money. Oh, wait, it's already happened, and they didn't do anthing. No antitrust suits there. Hm... Inconsistent, control-freak baboons, anyone? (Or am I just very unclear?)
This topic has probably been discussed to death, so sorry in advance.

Anyway, I guess I should make this post less pointy. What am I missing here? Is there something more specific?

[Polygon]

the difference here is:

windows is the only operating system that runs using the windows kernel

on the other hand, there are countless operating systems, aka Distributions that are basically just a set of installed programs, but each uses the same linux kernel

so... since a user can choose between many many many different distributions, each with different sets of installed programs, and is not forced to use any one distro (unlike windows where you have to live with whats installed by default), this does not violate any antitrust laws like the one with microsoft preinstalling internet explorer

[GeneralZod]

The rules only apply if you are judged to be a monopoly, as Microsoft have been (in the EU and the US). If your operating system is on the desks of 95% of computers in the world, and you then bundle your own software with it, then that software has a truly enormous advantage over other software, even if that other software is of much higher quality. This is why the rules that monopolies have to be play by are far more stringent as they are uniquely placed to utterly destroy their competition, and not necessarily on the basis of merit.

The whole thing is not ridiculous at all, in my opinion (unless, of course, you subscribe to the belief that IE6 deserves it's huge marketshare compared to Firefox and Opera), although I think that some of the EU's sanctions were incredibly lousy: removing the media player to make Windows N was a thoroughly bone-headed move, and it would have made more sense, in my opinion, to make them bundle more player software, but from the competition (and include support for XVid and Ogg out of the box) : the competitors then get to compete on a level playing field so that the market share of a piece of software is dependent more on merit than on people just using the first thing they see; customers are served by having more quality software installed from the get-go; and Microsoft get to claim a better out of the box experience.



he whole thing was quite ridiculous, given that a 3rd party could create a new desktop environment for Windows if they really wanted to; if that happened, would Microsoft have to sell only the Windows kernel in the big box, then leave it up to the poor user to download / install the desktop environment, web browser, etc?


No, that would be ridiculous.



Needless to say, I'm not with the EU on that one.


I think you're fully with the EU on this one, since they'd likely agree with your assessment :)



This brings to mind a question: Where does that whole package manager idea go with the EU's ridiculously inconsistent "rules" regarding packaging software with the OS (hurting competition)?


Nowhere. Not only is Linux not even close to having dominant market share, but there cannot be said to be a "Linux company" that only includes software that they make in the repositories, and not their competitors. Real's Helix is, if Real wish it, every bit as eligible for inclusion in the repositories or the default install as mplayer is.



Seems to me they'd have a field day if a distro like this started making money.


This has nothing to do with making money.



Oh, wait, it's already happened, and they didn't do anthing.


Because, as mentioned, Linux distros fulfil none of the criteria for anti-trust actions. Even if they had 95% share (there is no fixed percentage where a company can be said to have a monopoly, so I'll just use 95% as a figure), it still likely wouldn't happen, because Linux distros are equal-opportunity bundlers. To put it another way: If, say, Ubuntu had 95% market share and bundled Firefox, there would be little grounds for complaint: Firefox is third-party software, so Canonical are not guilty of unfairly pushing their browser ahead of the competition. But who knows, maybe Opera or some other browser company would attempt to instigate proceedings anyway and be successful - I'm not 100% sure how it all works :)

However, if Apple reached 95% market share, then it's entirely possible that they would face sanctions as most of the software they bundled - iTunes, iMove, iDon'tKnowWhatElse, is undeniably Apple software.

[justynbutler]

@GeneralZod: an excellently articulated post, thank you.

[GeneralZod]

@GeneralZod: an excellently articulated post, thank you.

Thanks for the kind words, but don't take mine as gospel - this is basically just a bunch of stuff I've scraped together from previous discussions and may be very inaccurate. IANAL, and all that :)