Quote:
Originally Posted by
47 Knucklehead 
So what if they did? Maybe Google should make their own operating system in addition to their own browser and start pushing their own computers and phones ...
Oh, wait, I forgot, they ARE making their own OS, browser, phones, and computers.
If it wasn't for this ruling there would be no Google Chrome, Google Chrome OS or Firefox at all. Hell, it would've paved the way to stopping things like Foobar2000, Winamp, iTunes, VLC, Media Player Classic from ever existing. For instance:
"Oh, hai, you want to start a company called Netflix and have movies and TV streaming on Windows? You have to first buy this licence to our API's otherwise your software won't do anything of value. What? This? This is our own streaming service we invented when you told us about your idea. No, we don't pay royalties on it and it comes preinstalled on all our operating systems. So, lets talk pricing. For 4 years you can use our API and in exchange we want 50% of your revenue and 4 virgin red heads delivered fortnightly"
Such comments like that are pure ignorance. Microsoft do not have the right to have a monopoly on web browsers or which applications can be installed on Windows. It's that simple.
The problem wasn't limited to including IE on Windows, but as reparations for the damages caused the courts ruled MS must make clear the selection of browsers available. MS simply threw their dummy out of the pram and created the N edition of Windows without a browser at all.Edited by Rubers - 7/18/12 at 4:48am