EU Browser Ballot Case Might Finally Come to an End

By | December 3, 2009

EU Browser Ballot Case Might Finally Come to an EndIf everything goes as expected, browser ballot case might be finally resolved by the end of December or even faster.

Bloomberg reports that during the phone conversation with Opera spokesman, it was said: “Our expectation is that the settlement will include changes sought by Opera and will come out around the 15th,”

What are those changes?
Opera Software suggested that instead of listing top 5 web browsers alphabetically, they should be randomly ordered, every time user sees a ballot screen.

Bloomberg also said that Jesse Verstraete, a Microsoft spokesman in Brussels, declined to comment on this case. So don’t hold your breath yet.


About (Author Profile)

Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rafael says:

    I wouldn’t think on anything better!!! *———*

  2. Diego says:

    I love Opera, but this case is ridiculous… ¬¬

    • kri says:

      I don’t see what’s ridiculous about it. Microsoft broke the law, then they were reported for breaking the law, and an investigation found that they had in fact broken the law.

      Is Microsoft above the law? I would hope not!

  3. IceArdor says:

    What a cop-out for IE with this browser ballot. It really isn’t pressuring Microsoft to improve its web standards, which is really what this is all about.

    • Eice says:

      Blame the crybabies at Opera for not even mentioning it then. I can’t help but wonder why all they ever talked about was forcing Microsoft to give them free advertisement in Windows, if this whole issue is about “pressuring Microsoft to improve web standards”, as you claim.

      Oh, wait, given how obvious the answer to that is, actually I don’t.

      • nobody says:

        ofc it is free advertisement, ie8 has good enought standards support now, ie9 is progresing nicely in this direction, so persuading them to do something that already is being done is an easy way to achieve success. oh well..

        ballot screen is opera’s lowest marketing move ever done. it might be successfull, but that would mean that you can get more with being crybaby than with offering market what market wants.

        and this randomize thing.. jizs, because ‘apple safari’ is first? people will choose firefox no matter how obscure this screen will be. i’m sure that mozilla will use ‘extensions’ in description, that is enough.

        • Average users do not know what extensions are.

        • kri says:

          IE7 was the latest version back when the complaint was filed. The logical conclusion is that the complaint forced Microsoft to move towards standards. This has happened before. Microsoft wouldn’t budge until forced by the authorities.

          If the complaint hadn’t been filed Microsoft would probably not have made IE8 and 9 more standards compliant.

          The ballot screen was Microsoft’s own suggestion to the EC. It seems odd to claim that it’s marketing by Opera when it was Microsoft’s move.

          Randomizing is the only fair way to do it.

          Opera hasn’t gotten anything by being a crybaby. Reporting a crime to the authorities is not being a crybaby, it is being a responsible citizen. The crybabies seem to be the people who complain about this case without knowing much of anything about it.

          • Eice says:

            So the credit belongs to Opera when Microsoft takes the initiative to improve standards compliance in IE8 and IE9, but Opera has nothing to do with forcing Microsoft to give it free advertising? Could the shamelessness and hypocrisy be any more blatant?

            And not content with double standards, you seem to have stooped to lies as well. Please show us evidence that any legal authority has decided that bundling IE with Windows is a crime.

          • kri says:

            I’m not sure why you are reading these things into my comment. Yes, Opera can probably be credited for putting pressure on Microsoft by highlighting what they were doing to the authorities. It seemed to have an effect quite early on:

            “While we do not believe there are currently any legal requirements that would dictate which rendering mode must be chosen as the default for a given browser, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue

            What do you think they were referring to?

            But Opera didn’t force Microsoft to do this specific thing. They only put general pressure on Microsoft by reporting their criminal activity.

            Indeed, Opera has little to nothing to do with Microsoft’s browser ballot suggestion. It was Microsoft who made the suggestion at the time, probably to avoid fines. And even if Opera wanted Microsoft to use a ballot, Opera had no authority over Microsoft or the EC to force anything to happen.

            No one is claiming that bundling alone is a crime. The EC has determined that the way Microsoft used bundling to ruin the market and the competition was illegal. You shouldn’t call me a liar. You should contact the EC because this is their finding. It’s not something I pulled out of thin air.

            I’m sure you know about Microsoft’s history of anti-competitive practices:

            Bundling is not a crime, but abusing it as a dominant company is.

          • Eice says:

            I’m reading those things in your comments due to the simple fact that they are there. In your own words, Opera can “put pressure” on Microsoft to improve standards compliance in IE, but they played no part in forcing Microsoft to give them free advertising in Windows? The discrepancy in logic is wide enough to drive a mack truck through, and I’m afraid I’ll have to call bullshit on that one.

            And secondly, I’m not disputing the EC’s findings in my post. What I’m asking is that you provide proof that the EC has actually found Microsoft guilty of bundling IE with Windows – hence making it a crime.

          • kri says:

            Eice, you are still not reading my comments honestly and sincerely.

            I didn’t say that Opera directly put pressure on Microsoft. I said that getting the government involved made Microsoft try to appear to be doing the right thing. Opera itself has no authority or power over Microsoft. But Microsoft’s fear of government fines does have an effect.

      • Crackerflack says:

        Blame the crybabies at Opera for not even mentioning it then. I can’t help but wonder why all they ever talked about was forcing Microsoft to give them free advertisement in Windows, if this whole issue is about “pressuring Microsoft to improve web standards”, as you claim.

        Opera did mention standards. A whole paragraph about it in the original announcement:

        “Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities. The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious “Embrace, Extend and Extinguish” strategy.”

        But in the end Opera is powerless. It’s the EC which makes the decisions. Opera can only make suggestions, just like Google, Mozilla and ECIS.

        • Eice says:

          I can’t seem to find a copy of the original announcement offhand. But assuming you’re right, it looks like I’d have to stand corrected.

  4. Ichan says:

    You know I was thinking the same thing a couple of month back. But instead of random jumbling each time the screen is started, I proposed that each copy once installed has a random placement of the browsers that are fixed.

    And yes Opera does whine too much

    • kri says:

      Opera? You do know that Mozilla and Google are involved as well, right?

      • Ichan says:

        Opera is crying the hardest. Also that was a response to the article. No where did it state google or mozilla.

        So there you go

        • blah says:

          nobody is crying. Unless someone reporting a crime or filing an antitrust case is crying, then name one, ONE, single company that did not cry.

          • Ichan says:

            Repeated complaining sounds like crying to me. As you say their are others which I do not deny but its the constant emphasize put forward by Opera soft is annoying.

          • blah says:

            what constant complaining? How many cases did Opera make to the EU? Do you know how many complaints made Microsoft against google alone per year? And I don’t really understand why Opera gets the crybaby label, when in reality other firms do it far more often. Seriously? Why AMD didn’t get as much flak? Why? They even got money out of this. Opera will not. Get a grip on reality, please.

          • nobody says:

            nice try Thoe

            but, why opera gets crybaby label? because whining is their ONLY way of doing marketing these days. you’ll bring google/mozilla money pigbank, ok, you can, but opera – according to your claims, and their financial data – has lots of money in bank – why not spend it on advertising? web ads? pertnerships like ebay+ms [or better start with making opera work on ebay..]. insted, opera takes giant shortcut and whines.

            amd was ripped by intel, but amd still managed to provide great products, same with ati/nvidia case. ati demolished nvidia dominance with 4850/70 series cards, not by court rulings or petitions.

            what opera will gain from this free advertising, it will lose sooner or later because opera cannot deliver product good enough to apeal to the market.

          • kri says:

            “because whining is their ONLY way of doing marketing these days”

            Opera is doing a lot of different marketing related things. The marketing results of answering questions from journalists regarding the EC case (which your refer to as “whining”) is very limited.

            “opera cannot deliver product good enough to apeal to the market”

            Opera’s growth shows they can. But that’s not really the issue here. You were talking about marketing, and you don’t need a good product to have successful marketing. Shoddy products often have great marketing and grow because of that, not because they are actually good.

        • kri says:

          Ok, so just because the article doesn’t mention Google or Mozilla, neither of them are actually involved?

          I’m not seeing any crying. I’m seeing Opera, Google and Mozilla responding to questions about their position regarding the EC antitrust case and Microsoft’s propsed solutions.

          It is not repeated complaining (if it was, then anyone mentioning something more than once would be “crying”), it is responding to updates to the case as they happens, as a result of journalists contacting them about it.

          Opera has made something like one single official statement on their own. All other statements from Opera on the case are results of direct questions from journalists.

  5. blah says:

    You are an idiot.

    • Ichan says:

      Stop Crying. If you are really hurt by what I said I am sorry. Now doesnt fell a lot better? No? Want me to kiss that boo boo of yours? Come here child. I got a lollipop you can suck on!