June 13th, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

As an avid tech enthusiast, I have been following your investigation of sorts into Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices in regards to its internet browser, Internet Explorer. To be frank, your investigation was not unwarranted: Microsoft’s dominance in terms of browser market share is impressive, at the least. But, just because a particular piece of software has dominance in an industry (Internet Explorer had control of 65.5% of the browser space as of May 2009 (1)) does not necessarily mean that it is participating in anti-competitive practices.

Now, before we can start to debunk the notion that Microsoft may be participating in such practices, we need to look at the source of this accusation: another browser, which, despite it’s more than twelve year existence in the industry, has yet to garner more than two percent of the desktop browser market share. Understandably, the company would like to place the blunt of the blame of this failure on Microsoft, and it’s, supposedly, anti-competitive actions. What Opera fails to realize, or, most likely, fails to inform others of is its own dominance in the mobile browser space. As of May 2009, Opera Mobile had control of over 24.6% of the mobile browser space (2). Now, if you were to calculate the iPhone and iPod touch as one entity instead of two, Opera loses the first place position, but in terms of this conversation, we are discussing Microsoft and Opera Software.

So, is Opera participating in anti-competitive practices as well? Of course they aren’t, and neither is Microsoft. Let’s create a real life scenario: if one particular consumer has a BlackBerry smartphone, they are free to download a mobile version of Opera’s web browser onto their device and use it over the built in web browser provided by RIM (the creators of the BlackBerry and its software). Likewise, a user with any modern version of Microsoft’s own Windows Mobile operating system can download a copy of Opera and use that over the mobile version Internet Explorer. This is the exact same case for the desktop: while a web browser may come bundled with an operating system, the end user is free to download another browser at will.

You see, the basic definition of the term anti-competitive is anything that attempts to stop competition between businesses. What I would like to ask you is this: how is Microsoft committing an anti-competitive action by shipping Internet Explorer bundled with its Windows operating system? Does Internet Explorer contain the ability to block other users from downloading another piece of software to browse the Internet? If not, which is the case, why is shipping a particular version of its own software anti-competitive? It does not bar users from finding and installing other alternative software. It does not limit them to what they can or cannot do. All it does is provide a medium for the end user, who, in a large number of cases, does not express a particular feeling for such a piece of software, to browse the Internet.

To the public’s knowledge, there has been no action taken by other web browser developers (notably Mozilla, the developers of Firefox, as well as Opera) to have their browser shipped on Windows. Likewise, there is no reason why OEMs (original equipment manufacturers, such as Dell and Acer) can’t ship another web browser alongside Internet Explorer on machines they build and distribute. As such, I believe it is safe to say that there are no anti-competitive actions occurring here.

To summarize, while Internet Explorer may have dominance in the internet browser market space, their lead does not necessarily constitute that anti-competitive practices are being used. Likewise, Opera (the original company that asked you to investigate Microsoft), has its own level of control in the mobile browser space. As far as anyone in the public can tell, neither company is doing anything that prevents their software (whether it is an operating system or browser) from stopping the downloading or use of another web browser. Browser developers have also, at least from the eyes of the public, have not reached out to offer their products alongside Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and, as such, should not claim that they are participating in such alleged illegal activities. Because of this, I believe your pursuit of such a case is absolutely outrageous and does not reflect any sort of understanding of the technology and software industries.

Thank You for Your Time,

Connor Wilkins

1. According to Net Applications’ monthly analysis of various market shares. (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M)

2. According to StatCounter Global Stats. (http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-daily-20090501-20090531-bar)