|
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
A additional monetary would be a must, and the time for the ballot should be
extended by triple the time duration that MS ignored the agreement. To do
anything less would be to reward MS for ignoring the contract that they made.
However, to make this actually have some sting, why not take a lesson from the
UK courts? Perhaps the EU court should have required descriptions under each
browser choice and, under IE, the ballot would be required to say something
like: 'IE, the least secure and most sluggishly patched browser that a user can
choose. IE is only to be used if the user is not worried about having his/her
information stolen and his/her computer taken over by malware.
If we can do that, though...
"Firefox: the browser derived from Netscape, which Microsoft ran out of
business by anticompetitive tying. MS may have been able to run the original
company out of business, but performance and plugins have kept the development
thread going."
"Chrome: a fast browser sponsored by Google, and Google seems to be kicking
Microsoft's behind in the browser market and the search market at the present
time, since Bing is as poor of a search engine as IE is a rotten browser."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|