industry coalition, has filed the first complaint against Microsoft to the European Commission

Web browser firm files complaint over Microsoft

A small Norwegian maker of Web browsers, backed by an industry coalition, has filed the first complaint against Microsoft to the European Commission since the software giant lost a landmark antitrust case earlier this year.

Opera Software said it has complained that Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) illegally ties its Web browser, Internet Explorer, to its dominant Windows operating system.

Microsoft is also "hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards", the company said.

Both make it difficult for Opera to compete, it said.

Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd confirmed that the EU executive had received the complaint, which comes after a September 17 EU Court of First Instance ruling that upheld a 2004 European Commission decision against the company on antitrust grounds. Todd said the complaint would be studied carefully.

Opera is a member of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), a long-time opponent of Microsoft, and ECIS issued a statement critical of the software giant.

"By tying its Internet Explorer product to its monopoly Windows operating system and refusing to faithfully implement industry accepted open standards, Microsoft deprives consumers of a real choice in Internet browsers," ECIS lawyer Thomas Vinje said in the statement.

Opera's complaint echoes a U.S. case from 1998, in which the U.S. Justice Department won a major judgment against Microsoft for competing illegally against another browser, Netscape.

Opera asked the Commission to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. It also asked the Commission to require Microsoft to follow "fundamental and open Web standards".


Opera Take A Double EU Pop At Internet Explorer
Multi-platform Web browser company Opera have filed a complaint with the European Commission citing Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

The approach is two pronged - abuse of Microsoft’s dominant position in tying its browser to the Windows operating system and, second, hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards.

The abuse of position is, for want of a better word, a ‘normal’, or expected approach, but the interoperability one is interesting.

It’s well known that people developing Web sites have a burden on them in having to develop different versions of Web sites to ensure that all Web browser display the sites as expected. If a browser doesn’t support accepted standards, this obviously make the whole process more difficult, time consuming and expensive.

Ambitious action
This is an ambitious action by Opera, not one that we would have thought would normally be taken on without an indication from the EC that they might be in with a chance of success.

We spoke to Jon von Tetzchner, Opera’s CEO, putting that to him. “We don’t have any direct indication,” he told us, “but once we saw the EC ruling on the Media player, we believed we stood a good chance.” He continued, “We believe in the merits of our argument and are optimistic in the case being successful.”

Von Tetzchner raised the valid point that as Browsers go to more devices, “a unified Web is important.” Sound thinking on our book.

We asked how the compatibility of a Web browser can be proven, von Tetzchner offered that “a number of tests would be needed.” He suggested that the ACID 2 could be a starting point, but that “third parties could be brought in to provide impartial tests.”

ACID 2 is a challenge to meet, indeed von Tetzchner told us that it too quite some effort for them to ensure that Opera 3 got through the process, something that they took on some time ago - they’re now on release 9.

Taking the sword of truth in both hands, von Tetzchner, swung it, “We are filing this complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist make choices for them. We cannot rest until we’ve brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide.”

We, and we’re sure anyone who has ever tried to develop a Web page, fully support any action that make the process less frustrating.

Earth's magnetic field could help for astronauts working on the moon

It has been 35 years since humans last walked on the moon, but there has been much recent discussion about returning, either for exploration or to stage a mission to Mars. However, there are concerns about potential radiation danger for astronauts during long missions on the lunar surface.
A significant part of that danger results from solar storms, which can shoot particles from the sun to Earth at nearly the speed of light and can heat oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and send it in a hazardous stream toward the moon.

Earth is largely protected by its magnetic field, or magnetosphere, but new University of Washington research shows that some parts of the moon also are protected by the magnetosphere for seven days during the 28-day orbit around Earth.

"We found that there were areas of the moon that would be completely protected by the magnetosphere and other areas that are not protected at all," said Erika Harnett, a UW assistant research professor of Earth and space sciences.

Solar energetic particles, which are generated during solar storms, carry enough energy to disrupt communications on Earth or even kill satellites in Earth orbit. During those same storms, particles from Earth's ionosphere, primarily oxygen, also can become significantly energized. Though they are not as powerful as solar energetic particles, they still pose a significant threat to astronauts working on the moon, or even en route to Mars.
Using computers to model properties of the magnetosphere, Harnett found that while solar storms can increase the danger from ionosphere particles hitting the moon they also trigger conditions in the magnetosphere that deflect many hazardous solar particles.

Particles with high enough energy can pass directly through a human without much damage, Harnett said, but particles packing slightly less oomph, though unfelt by a human, can lodge in a person. Typically it's not just one particle but many, and the accompanying radiation can damage cells, she said.

Some of the research is detailed in a poster being presented at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San Francisco, while other aspects are in a paper published last month in the online edition of Geophysical Research Letters. Robert Winglee, a UW Earth and space sciences professor, is co-author of the work, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA.

In the longest missions of NASA's Apollo Program, astronauts spent just a few days on the moon. The last mission, Apollo 17, was launched Dec. 7, 1972, landed on the moon on Dec. 11 and arrived back on Earth on Dec. 19.

"During Apollo, people were not on the moon for very long so there wasn't the concern about the radiation hazard to humans as there is with longer missions," Harnett said.

Today there is much greater understanding of the danger posed by solar energetic particles, particularly because of the adverse effects they can have on satellite communications during periods of intense solar flare activity.

"The problem is that we can't predict when this activity is going to take place so we can't warn astronauts to take shelter, so they could be vulnerable when the moon is outside the magnetosphere," Harnett said. "The particles travel near the speed of light, so when we see them generated on the sun's surface they will arrive in a few minutes and there is little time to react."

The new research could help determine when it is safe for astronauts to work far from a lunar base, she said. But she added that models used in the work suggest that energetic oxygen from Earth's ionosphere also poses a danger, even though it is less energetic than solar particles.

"It wouldn't kill someone instantly, but it definitely could increase the radiation exposure for an astronaut on the moon," Harnett said.

However, she noted that the danger from energetic oxygen could be overstated because the models do not take into account the positive electrical charge on the daylight side of the moon that likely would significantly slow the oxygen stream