Being from the EU myself, I wonder why microsoft doesn't just stop supplying us with operating systems as response? I mean, it's not like we've got any real alternative to windows. Sure we could use some linux variation, but truely no ordinary user would even consider that option.
I just don't understand why a company as powerful as microsoft can't stand up and fight the eu commission. It's not like it's the european population that has a beef with microsoft. It's 'only' the commission and a select number of individuals from companies that feel they're at a disadvantag. (read: greed).
Perhaps beurocracy has finally defeated both common sense and industrialization. You are not allowed to make the best choice if your competator would become at a disadvantage by it. You're not allowed to provide quality products, lest the products get popular and cost other companies their existence. In essence, you're not allowed to create the products you want, for fear that someone less competent might get hurt.
I do realize that msn beat icq because it was bundled with windows, and mirabilis sold icq to fools. But if msn was so much worse than icq, people would still use the latter. Same story for media player. Sure it's bundled with all windows systems, but EVERY SINGLE of the more than 400 computers I'm in charge of has media player classic (codecguide.com) installed, as it is superior to windows media player 11, and some even have winamp as well. Point is - if you're not happy with the bundled software, microsoft isn't stopping you from using third party ones. That's a tactic apple has used with great success, but if they'd be as big as microsoft, they'd probably get a similar treatment.
What is 'fair' can always be argued about. But only if archiving 'fairness' includes moving money away from the big players, will fairness be pursued.
Just my 2 cents.