[marknutter]

But that doesn't fit with the analogy. Downloading and installing a third party browser is next to effortless. Who cares if the OEMs didn't install them? In my analogy the third party gas companies had to send out a technician to install their service, but could presumably do that free of charge to entice the customers to switch to their service.

[toyg]

It still prevented other companies to have similar, competing agreements with house builders, and inflicted extra costs on them. As such, it's clearly an abuse of a monopolistic position in one market to influence another.

In any case, this is not open to debate -- both the American and European justice systems found MS guilty, so that's how it is.

[marknutter]

Right, because the American and European justice systems have never gotten it wrong, before.

[_Simon]

No. The issue isn't that the end use couldn't install a browser, the issue was that Microsoft forbade OEMs with the threat of removing their distribution license from pre-installing other browsers, thus preventing competition at point of sale. This is anti-trust. It's not a 'stupid' law, it extremely sound. Microsoft, in all reality, should have been broken up as a result, but because the judge mouthed-off (and some heavy lobbying), they were treated more leaniently.