|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
What I said was that just because it doesn't involve courts (ie the reference to
Apple's patent litigation in the parent) doesn't mean it's not abusive (note:
that does not mean it necessarily *is* abusive) in response to the poster
suggesting that it's "just" whether preferential treatment is
maintained. And then I said we have no idea what's happened yet because the
story we have clearly isn't impartial.
Is there any indication what Acer's responsibilities were? Did they actually
violate a contract or was this Google's discretion (again if anything actually
happened here)? We really don't know - I accept that.
MS are certainly in a whole different category here - they're straight up
malicious (and yeah, my example of how this could have been abusive was of
course from MS, because they wrote the textbook on anticompetitive behaviour).
And yes, there's clearly a determined smear campaign. Not going to argue that -
it's pretty obvious. I didn't think putting a "yeah, but MS are far
worse" disclaimer on every post was necessary - it's kind of a given. On
other sites maybe, but surely everyone here realises that?
That however doesn't mean I'm not very interested to see what happened here or
willing to give Google a pass regardless of the situation (not that they need my
approval, but yeah).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
