@gnizmo
You gleefuly ignore the fact that the "one company" means about 95% of the OS market and that everything started because some competitors asked for the spotlight to be cast on MS' specific case, not on the general lack of a legislation.
I do agree that better legislation is in order so that any company would be automatically subjected to the same restrictions, were they in a dominant position. But that doesn't make any less useful imposing those restrictions on 95% of the OS market in one swoop.
And I hope you're conscious that proceedings against firms guilty of price-fixing or rigging often happen on a per-case basis because the legislation will always be outpaced by the economic and technical specifics.
@Kasz216
They are not being forced to ship an OS without a browser. They are being forced to show a screen to the user giving the option to choose between several browsers, or in other words they are being forced to inform the user that he/she can freely choose to substitute the most vital single piece of software according to their liking and help even the less tech savy in doing so. The similtude with cars and radios doesn't hold for so many reasons that I don't feel the need to pursue it.
