Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Jul 2009 07:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 375701
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-05
No, it was not totally legal as long as the EU said it wasn't.
The question is not if it was illegal. The question is if it was sufficient to restore competition in the market. And it wasn't. If you rob a bank and get caught, do you think that YOU will be able to dictate what your own punishment should be? That's just laughable.
Which is much better than freezing it to just one. Also, this will make the barrier to enter the market for new browsers much lower.
No it doesn't, but your Google comment raises an interesting problem. Google has a dominant position in the search market. They can offer revenue sharing with a 50/50 split, while Opera, Mozilla and others could only achieve a 33/33/33 split (browser vendor/OEM/search provider).
This could quickly get into anti-competitive territory.
No it does not.