By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WereKitten said:

@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.

Doing it per case is stupid in this situation though. It is literally the exact same thing. Apple ships with Safari. Instead of attacking both companies and settling it once and for all, they decided to penalize one company. It is useless because the next up and comer will once again have billions to fight against this same scenario which will waste more tax payer money, and more court time. Apple essentially flaunts the fact that they hold all rights to which software will run on their various devices (iPods et al) and no one bats an eye over it. One sided, Nanny State bullshit.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229