In most cases I would agree with you, but in this case the free market doesn't really work that well because the stakeholders in the internet browser compatibility market are the software developers. Unfortunately internet software developers make up such a tiny portion of the actual market share of web browsers that they could all make the move to Firefox or Opera (and most of them do) and it would still have minimal effect.

The software developer is presented with two choices: 1. Continue to develop software for IE no matter how annoying and time consuming it is to nail all those annoying bugs or 2. Refuse to support IE.

Since the general public (read: the bulk of web browser users) are generally ignorant of the difference between IE/Firefox/Opera/etc these companies are really left with no choice. Either support Microsoft or die. The stakeholders are left powerless because they are participants in a market where the participants in that market don't even understand what they are consuming and why.

Of course Microsoft is not a monopoly (by the precise definition of the term), and I tend to lean away from antitrust legislation. However, the externalities their selfish decisions in this area project on the market sum to millions on millions of dollars, if this threat incites them to do something about that I am all for it.

I tend to think that if users really think they need something, they'll find a way to get it. For example, most people managed to get themselves a DVD Player. They saw that their neighbours were doing some cool thing in their homes, and m,anaged to inform themselves and buy the bloody players.

If people were so keen on IE alternatives, they would pester their bosses to be allowed to switch. Apparently, FF is not different enough for people to care.

Going the legal way might just open a huge can of worms. For example, how likely will companies be in the future to agree on standards, if next thing they know they'll end up in court for it? As a company, I'd rather stick to my proprietary stuff instead (Flash...).

Also, maybe it simply isn't so easy to be 100% compliant to a specification. Is the specification even unambiguous enough, and clear enough for every developer getting the same picture? Should we really use the courts to establish the meanings of paragraphs in specifications like that? And what about Opera, they suck pretty bad, too - if Microsoft gets some flack, they should be next.

As a web developer, I'd rather wish the EU would shoot down both IE and Opera, and simply force everyone to use Firefox. While they are at it, they should also disallow new versions of Firefox to come out, because they might force me to adapt my code. But that is not the world we REALLY want to live in, or is it?

"If people were so keen on IE alternatives, they would pester their bosses to be allowed to switch. Apparently, FF is not different enough for people to care."

This is what I am getting at. Its not enough for your average person to care, because the stakeholders in the browser war are the developers who have to put in all the extra time to make it work on IE so the average person can be browser agnostic.

In this case Microsoft is abusing their power as a large presence in the market to do whatever they want even though that is detrimental to the market. While I do think that an antitrust case would be over the top, there has to be some way to do something about this.