> Google is merely behaving negligently For one example, Google started showing results linked to G+ while not showing superior results from Twitter. That look

> Google is merely behaving negligently For one example, Google started showing results linked to G+ while not showing superior results from Twitter. That looked like an open-and-shut case of Google using its search monopoly to promote one of its own properties to the disadvantage of a rival. I really don't think it counts as negligence... > IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. I'm not sure there is a useful analogy with the Google case. However, IE6 was initially a good product and fell behind out of neglect. That was partly because Microsoft didn't do a new browser until it did a new OS, and the new OS -- Vista -- was (a) delayed and then (b) unsuccessful. Mistakes were made, as they say. The point is that Microsoft wasn't "pushing [IE6] on consumers". Microsoft was desperate to get consumers off IE6 and XP, but consumers (and businesses) didn't want to move. Either way, Microsoft's mistakes left the door open for Firefox and, later, Chrome. The anti-trust action didn't solve the problem -- and it didn't help Netscape, which started it. The market solved the problem by creating better browsers.