Opera sues Microsoft

As a web developer, creating web pages that work in IE is a nightmare.  Hopefully the world's worst browser gets its comeuppance.
Posted on 2007-12-13 16:21:04 by drhowarddrfine
From ComputerWorld
"Microsoft either fails to implement industry-standard accepted open practices or implements them in a manner that is not faithful to the standard by adding undisclosed proprietary extensions," ECIS' Thomas Vinje, the group's legal counsel, charged in a separate statement.

Web developers have been making the same case individually. In reaction to posts placed on the official IE blog, developers have blasted Microsoft for not properly supporting standards in the current IE 7, and not spelling out what standards will be supported in the upcoming IE 8.
Posted on 2007-12-13 17:10:32 by drhowarddrfine
PC World"]Opera is asking the Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, to force Microsoft to unbundle IE from Windows, or include other browsers as a standard part of its operating system. It also wants it to require Microsoft to adhere to industry standards with its Web browser.


I completely agree with the second part: that asks Microsoft to adhere to standards with its Web Browser. However, as a Web Developer myself, I love playing around with Microsoft's extensions in Web Browsers. Those that are only available in IE. I believe that they somehow make Scripting in particular easier and more comprehensive for web developers.

However, that being said, I think the first part of the quoted paragraph shows how helpless those companies are compared to Microsoft. That is a cry for help in my opinion. They are very poor kids complaining to their grandparents about their parents' abuse of their power. I wouldn't call it abuse however. As I've said earlier, my decisions and way of talking about Microsoft is strongly biased due to this company's wealth and power. I believe that they are industry's leading company and they are bringing a lot of wealth to the world by selling their products.

All in all, these are just pathetic attempts to try to bring Microsoft down (which they won't be able to do). To me it is like crying for help like "Oh please, put Opera in your Operating System. Please! We are dying of loneliness here. 1 out of 100 people only might use Opera, we want more users. We are begging".

I just don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that Microsoft has the power and you just have to believe the fact that they will create their own standards and they could not care less about industry's so called standards. To me all this industry standard that is for example followed by FireFox is simply a pain in the neck as far as web-development and scripting is concerned. I would rather create a website that only runs in IE than having to bother with making it compatible with FireFox.
Posted on 2007-12-13 17:12:33 by XCHG
However, as a Web Developer myself, I love playing around with Microsoft's extensions in Web Browsers. Those that are only available in IE. I believe that they somehow make Scripting in particular easier and more comprehensive for web developers.
I don't know what you mean by "extensions".

All in all, these are just pathetic attempts to try to bring Microsoft down (which they won't be able to do). To me it is like crying for help like "Oh please, put Opera in your Operating System. Please! We are dying of loneliness here. 1 out of 100 people only might use Opera, we want more users. We are begging".
Although this complaint is filed by Opera, depending which country you live in, up to half the users may be using a non-IE browsers.  Particularly Europe and Australia.

I just don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that Microsoft has the power and you just have to believe the fact that they will create their own standards and they could not care less about industry's so called standards.
Hence the problem.

To me all this industry standard that is for example followed by FireFox is simply a pain in the neck as far as web-development and scripting is concerned. I would rather create a website that only runs in IE than having to bother with making it compatible with FireFox.
Then you are not a web developer.  See the link in the quote above.  Web developers have blasted Microsoft over this.  You NEVER write markup for a web site geared to ANY one browser.  You ALWAYS code to standards set by the W3C (of which Microsoft is a member).  Then you are reasonably assured your site will work in ALL browsers, sometimes even IE.  However, IE frequently needs hacks and workarounds.  There are hundreds of web sites dedicated to "fixes" to make IE perform correctly.

Think of it this way.  Let's say that, in your country, a regulating body sets the standard for broadcast TV.  Microsoft first builds a TV but it doesn't quite follow the standard.  So because the first MS TVs didn't follow the standard, the TV stations deviated from the standard so you could view their programs.  GE and Sony build sets that follow the standard correctly but people won't buy the GE or Sony TVs because they don't work like the MS TV. 

The internet is a world wide public access network and not the Microsoft-only world wide web. 

And if you think Microsoft has much to offer, think of this.  Internet Explorer version 7 is 10 years behind web standards.  It does not run the DOM correctly.  It can't display XHTML served as XHTML.  It can't do SVG.  It can't run much better than half the CSS properties that Firefox and Opera and Safari can.  It doesn't run the current javascript standard properly.  And these are just some of the complaints.
Posted on 2007-12-13 18:17:19 by drhowarddrfine
Well, I agree that IE is pretty crappy (I'm an opera user myself). But I think the lawsuit has no basis. These companies that develop web browsers really need to lay off Microsoft. The way I look at it, Microsoft distributes an Operating System and they have the right to release whatever software with that Operating System they want (no matter how crappy it is). That would be like the creators of GRUB sueing Microsoft for not allowing users the option of using their boot loader. I personally just don't code compatibility with IE and stick with the * Strict standards from W3C whenever I can, nine times out of ten, they look pretty good with IE anyways. When you do get issues users will generally figure out on their own they need to ditch the POS browser for something that doesn't require hack code to display a web page.
Posted on 2007-12-13 22:10:15 by Synfire
I personally just don't code compatibility with IE and stick with the * Strict standards from W3C whenever I can, nine times out of ten, they look pretty good with IE anyways.
This is true, except when you get into commercial sites like I do.  I constantly have to tweak the markup to get things to stay in line, or work altogether, in IE.  I rarely have to do this with any other browser.  Following the W3C standard is absolutely the right way to go, but it seems like we have to write the markup twice all the time; once for modern browsers and again for IE.  It's really frustrating knowing the CSS 'height' property is treated as 'min-height' by IE but the 'min-height' property doesn't work at all in IE.
Posted on 2007-12-13 22:30:55 by drhowarddrfine
Firefox, Opera, Netscape, Safari... Lynx :P

The best thing Microsoft could do is ignore/nullify/win this lawsuit and continue doing what they do... and causing even more people to change over to better and more W3C/standards faithful web browsers. All this lawsuit could do is give IE a 2nd wind and it will take that much longer to rid ourselves of such a substandard browser.

For most sites, I just stick to using XHTML Strict and deal with the HTML/CSS tweaks needed to placate IE6/7 quirkiness.

PS: ActiveX is one of the most poorly design, unsecured, buggy, propriety-garbage systems I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. ASP comes in as a close 2nd.
Posted on 2007-12-13 23:00:41 by SpooK
IMHO forcing Microsoft to follow standards, in this case, is A Good ThingTM.

If they want to create extensions, fine thing by me, just hope that fscktarded developers won't use them... but as it is now, they violate standards in many ways (both in IE but other places as well). The standards are there for a reason, especially in the case of web technologies.
Posted on 2007-12-14 05:19:39 by f0dder

... hope that fscktarded developers ...


Topic locked, pending deletion  8)
Posted on 2007-12-14 06:29:51 by XCHG


... hope that fscktarded developers ...


Topic locked, pending deletion  8)


It's quite simple, really. Write code that works in all the major browsers, or go flip burgers at McDonald's.
Posted on 2007-12-14 07:38:20 by f0dder
Cater to a whole range of standards? Oh, like you have to with directx?
LOL
Posted on 2007-12-14 08:07:23 by Homer
Homer: fore DirectX, the sane thing is to stick to one version (caps support was removed in DX10 for a reason). Can't really compare to that anyway :)
Posted on 2007-12-14 08:20:54 by f0dder
There is no whole range of standards.  There is the W3C and nothing else.
Posted on 2007-12-14 08:30:06 by drhowarddrfine
I wonder why I couldn't lock this topic. I also pended this topic for deletion but it is not deleted either. Does anybody have any idea why  :shock:
Posted on 2007-12-14 08:45:29 by XCHG

I wonder why I couldn't lock this topic. I also pended this topic for deletion but it is not deleted either. Does anybody have any idea why  :shock:


I would hope not, otherwise SMF's security scheme is less than adequate ;)

If you are not a member of the Community Staff, you do not have proper authority to modify/lock/delete the posts of others.
Posted on 2007-12-14 11:14:16 by SpooK
I want to become a member of the Community Staff :lol: I don't know why I'm laughing but I really do.
Posted on 2007-12-14 11:19:06 by XCHG
I still see it as Opera suing Microsoft over making a crappy application and the majority of people in the world being so lazy they would rather use it over 3rd party products which follow higher standards. I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft or their products, but a line really needs to be drawn here. Put yourself in Microsoft's place, how many of you have written an application which doesn't follow strict standards (be it W3C, RFC, IEEE, or what not) but a close enough version which 90% of the time the application works. Now imagine if someone decided to sue you because you're application does not fully comply with those standards, while their similiar application does, yet yours is more popular because it's readily available. Now, are Opera, Firefox, Safari, and the others at an unfair advantage. Yes, of course. But that's one of the feature of MSIE is that it's readily available on Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. What those browser developers need to do is add features which make users actually WANT to take the time to change browsers. But that will be very difficult because the average user is VERY lazy. :p
Posted on 2007-12-14 20:38:29 by Synfire
Now imagine if someone decided to sue you because you're application does not fully comply with those standards

Target sued for inaccessible web site
The plaintiffs in the case — the NFB, the National Federation of the Blind of California and blind college student Bruce Sexton — claimed that the Minneapolis-based retailer’s Web site, www.target.com, violates federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.

Actually, I stand corrected and Opera is NOT suing Microsoft.  This is a complaint filed with the EU by Opera, attaching itself to their issues regarding Microsoft and Windows.  Just like there are standards for inter-operability for TV, telephone, cable, etc., Opera and the EU want standard protocols on the 'net.
Posted on 2007-12-14 22:25:48 by drhowarddrfine
So, in other words, someone is suing someone else because they want to promote their own products? I don't know American law, but in my country this sue would be impossible to win because here you have to prove that that the one you sue "deliberately, by his actions, wanted to do harm to someone else". I doubt MS "planned" to make the mentioned site inaccessible. What I see here now is that MS has its own browser and Opera is trying to make some profit out of it because the mentioned site works on their browser. Hmm, I can think of a webstie which won't work on opera, so should I sue them? "The standards", while being very important and actually needed, are not obligatory IIRC, so even if MS made a browser on which literally NO site works, no one should be able to sue them. That's what is called "creation" in my country's law. You can create anything you wish and this is yours as long as you haven't stolen it, copied, etc. In other words: ifyou create something using only your own ideas, plans, desings, etc., it is yours and yours only and you can do anything with it (as long as it doesn't break any laws), inluding selling it to other people. If people are willing to pay for it then no one stop either you from producing it or the people from buying it. And MS could as well 'block' other browsers from installing on their OS, because it's their OS. And if people would still buy this OS, then no one could stop either MS or the people.

That's what I don't understand in American law (and sometimes United Europe's law since they're trying to follow American standards when making the law). Free market is when someone is creating something and someone other is willing to pay for it. Free market is not when you can sue someone other just because their product is more popular and you cannot sue someone other just because you think your product is "better". You can, of course, educate people and try to convince them that your product is actually better, because of this and because of that, but you can't sue someone other because "the products they sell are worse than ours and people buy it only because they don't know about any alternatives". Well, if people were educated in every field then you wouldn't need what you call "advertisement", because educated people would always know  exactly what they want. The whole idea of "competition" is to try convince people that your product is better, not to make your product better. Of course, convincing the people that your product is better, sometimes requires that you actually have to make it at least a little better than someone else's. You know what I mean? A producer of one frying pans would sue another procuder of frying pans and claim that "our products are better, they allow better frying, but people use your products only because they don't know about ours!". Well, according to my coutry's law, the judge would just smile and say "I think the one you should really sue is the one responsible for your advertisement" :)

So to sum things up: I like the idea of "internet standards" and I think that everyone should follow them so that our life wuold be easier a little bit. But the fact that someone doesn't follow them (and even create their own -> MS's extensions to DOM) is not enough to calim that their product is "worse" and sue them because of that. What is better and what is worse is determined by the sales, not by someone's opinions. That's what you call "free market".
Posted on 2007-12-15 06:54:13 by ti_mo_n

So, in other words, someone is suing someone else because they want to promote their own products?
No.
I don't know American law, but in my country this sue would be impossible to win
This is with the European Union and Opera, which is in Belgium.
I doubt MS "planned" to make the mentioned site inaccessible.
It wasn't MS.  It was Target.
What I see here now is that MS has its own browser and Opera is trying to make some profit out of it
As is Microsoft but you've got the story wrong.
even if MS made a browser on which literally NO site works, no one should be able to sue them.
The problem is that Microsoft is considered to be a monopoly and cornering the internet market by making their browser and other software  less accessible to others. A monopoly is frequently regulated by government agencies in many/most countries; such as telephone companies and utilities.  Monopolies are usually illegal, too, and the companies are broken up.  This happened to ATT many years ago, creating the many "Baby Bells".

That's what I don't understand in American law (and sometimes United Europe's law since they're trying to follow American standards when making the law).
As stated, this is taking place in Europe, not the US.
Free market is when someone is creating something and someone other is willing to pay for it.
A monopoly that excludes all others is not free.
The whole idea of "competition" is to try convince people that your product is better
You cannot compete if you have no access.
A producer of one frying pans would sue another procuder of frying pans and claim that "our products are better, they allow better frying, but people use your products only because they don't know about ours!".
It's not the frying pan, it's the stove.  If Microsoft made stoves and frying pans but only Microsoft frying pans worked correctly on Microsoft stoves, and Microsoft stoves were the only stoves available at your department store, then how can you compete with that?
Posted on 2007-12-15 07:57:40 by drhowarddrfine