Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd May 2006 19:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 120558
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-12-31
> But there is a need. A majority of people prefer to
> use Google, if we are to believe statistics. And it
> shouldn't be done with a pull down menu: in order to
> be fair, there shouldn't be a default - the user has
> to click on an icon for a search engine to continue.
By this argument there shouldn't be any defaults. If I think that the Windows kernel sucks, can I replace it? No. Do I complain? No - because it is built as a part into Windows, and such is IE and now MSN, although one still has the choice to replace them. Very much the same applies, for example, to Ubuntu/Firefox/Google.
> However, since MS is in a monopoly position, it's
> anyone's guess, really. I don't think it's worth
> suing over this particular issue, however in the
> context of another antitrust issue (should one come
> up) it could certainly be used as evidence of MS's
> continuous abuse of its monopoly position.
This is much closer to the actual issue. MS is in a monopoly position. It is too strong for competitors to establish (so far). All this are attempts to tie them to the ground again. And what I think about all these attemps is that they are silly. They get lost in technical details and endless court fightings while the core issue remains untouched: MS is a monopoly, and as long as nobody stands up to establish competition, the customer is going to lose.