#2: Because it is MS that is pointing out that one company in the Japanese market will have greater than 90% of the search market it is somehow wrong? That line of reasoning makes no sense to me.
I never said anything of the sort. I said it was hypocritical of them to do so. Google + Yahoo = 90% is a fact that is neither good or bad, right or wrong on its face. As I've stated many, many times before, having a dominant market position is not illegal or wrong. It's the ensuing abuse of that position that gets companies into trouble.
Are they hypocritical? Possibly; but who cares
I care. I don't like being told "Do as I say, not as I do." MS is world-famous for doing this. The latest hilarity was how Corbis partnered with some company, stole their technology and then dumped them. Hmm, a company that pretends to partner, then screws the partner... what other company does that sound like and has that kind of track record? Who owns Corbis again? I'm sure there's a link but I just can't think of it...
the fact stands that the deal is monopolistic. I will assure you that the EU or even Canada would see this as anti-competitive.
I don't believe so. I've explained how it isn't anti-competitive. Can you explain to me how it is?
Your argument gets into the realm of "if I don't like the guy, he must be wrong" point of view.
Huh? My argument is more "this guy that likes to kick people in the nuts is complaining that someone kicked him in the nuts, and he's a hypocritical, shameless a-hole for doing so."
It's said better here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/blog-post/1725295/microsoft-angry-yahoo-google-tie
|