Hacker News Reader

But that doesn't fit with the analogy. Downloading and installing a third party browser is next to effortless. Who cares if the OEMs didn't install them? In my analogy the third party gas companies had to send out a technician to install their service, but could presumably do that free of charge to entice the customers to switch to their service.

View on HN

It still prevented other companies to have similar, competing agreements with house builders, and inflicted extra costs on them. As such, it's clearly an abuse of a monopolistic position in one market to influence another.

In any case, this is not open to debate -- both the American and European justice systems found MS guilty, so that's how it is.

Right, because the American and European justice systems have never gotten it wrong, before.

No. The issue isn't that the end use couldn't install a browser, the issue was that Microsoft forbade OEMs with the threat of removing their distribution license from pre-installing other browsers, thus preventing competition at point of sale. This is anti-trust. It's not a 'stupid' law, it extremely sound. Microsoft, in all reality, should have been broken up as a result, but because the judge mouthed-off (and some heavy lobbying), they were treated more leaniently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com