[creato]

But that behavior was just determined to be illegal, at least when the bidder is Google. It seems ridiculous if the sequence of events that happens here is:

1. Google is fined/broken up due (in part) to paying for the default search engine position.

2. In the newly broken off chrome company, they auction the default search engine position.

3. Google cannot bid on it. So I guess Microsoft is going to win that position? Who else is going to pay for it?

I can't imagine this is what happens. This would just make the DoJ look absolutely foolish and would basically put the DoJ in the position of being Microsoft's personal attack dog. But on the other hand, what else could happen? It's still ridiculous even if it's anyone other than Microsoft that is the winning bidder.

[kelnos]

Perhaps that behavior wouldn't be illegal in a scenario where Google has been broken up, and Chrome and Google Search are separate legal entities.

[creato]

Why would that matter though? Google owning chrome doesn't really have anything to do with them paying Apple for the safari default.

[thayne]

> what else could happen?

It prompts the user to pick a search engine on install? And let's be honest, most people will probably pick google anyway.

But then the question is, how will companies like Mozilla and a spin-off company for chrome make money if they can't auction off the default search engine anymore?