re moat: I don't see how your points here speak to your argument that Android is uncompetitive. It's an attempt not to get locked out of the mobile search marke

re moat: I don't see how your points here speak to your argument that Android is uncompetitive. It's an attempt not to get locked out of the mobile search market. If anything, it promotes competitiveness. A LOT of marketshare isn't a monopoly and I'm not sure what bearing regional marketshare has on your argument. A search for "Portland Or" gives me mapquest on the second page. "Portland Or Map" gives me mapquest as the second search result. "IE was actually better than Netscape in the late 90s, early 2000s. Netscape screwed itself by not releasing a new version during the dotcom boom between 1997 and 2007." So, are you arguing that MS was being perfectly fair and shouldn't have been convicted? At this point, I'm really not sure what you're arguing. I think my position is pretty clear. Are you arguing: 1. MS was wrong and now Google is similarly wrong. 2. MS was not wrong, but Google now is. 3. MS was perceived as wrong by the public, and so Google will be too because of similarities. It's starting to sound like you're representing 3, which isn't very interesting to me.