- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There wasn’t even a slap on the wrist in that ruling.
I liked googles response statement that they disagree with the ruling and are considering their next steps. You could hear the champagne bottles popping open in the background… and it was a written statement.
This tells you all you need to know about how “punitive” this ruling was
To be fair anything short of selling chrome or breaking up the company would have a positive reaction. The possibility of losing chrome was priced in.
Waiting for the Onion article “Google won’t have to sell judge”
Pushing far-right influencers on YouTube finally paid off to them…
I never thought forcing Google to sell Chrome was a good idea. Most of the companies lining up to buy it were AI companies flushed with private equity money. Does anyone really think those companies would do a better job at protecting user privacy and avoiding monopolistic practices?
While I agree with you, I wished that Mehta would entertain the idea of spinning Chrome into an independent company, even though it is still unclear to me how a browser company can generate revenue, especially to pay the salaries of the army of engineers working on Blink.
Yeah, it would have steadily lost money until one of those same companies stepped in and bought it anyway.
I’d be happy for chrome to collapse and go away entirely.
Aw, chucks
judge
rulesdroolscrime is legal anyway
