[sbennettmcleish]

Whilst it is Microsoft with bags of money and all that, I don't really see how such a huge fine (even for M$) is warranted.

Yes, they stopped offering the browser choice, but at what point did someone from EU-HQ contact MS-HQ and tell them they'll be fined if they don't put it back in? Surely it would only take a few weeks at the most to actually re-instate the "feature" once they were threatened with a huge fine.

It might have been better for Microsoft to have actually been forced to give money to the other browsers to promote their products, or alternatively, just bundle Firefox/Chrome with Windows and be done with it.

[gsnedders]

There was an explicit order in the previous anti-trust ruling that required it. The ruling stated they could be fined up to 10% of their revenue if they failed to comply. They did not comply. They were fined.

It's not like they weren't told about it first.

[devcpp]

They had been threatened a few times before implementing it. It's about time we stopped to play this game and make it clear stuff like that won't be tolerated at all.

It wouldn't have been better for Microsoft. They know very well that each product they establish as a monopoly increases their chance of coming back as an all-around industry leader. Actually, I'd be willing to bet this wasn't a "technical error". I've never seen features just unexpectedly disappear out of any piece of software.

[Someone]

Yes, I stopped obeying the speed limit, but at what point did someone contact me and tell me I'll be fined if I don't stop obeying the speed limit? Surely it would only take a few weeks at the most to actually make me obey the speed limit once I were threatened with a huge fine.

Do you think that makes sense?