Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes.
Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways.
The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money.
Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft,
Apple and Google don't compete on phones, because they've each intentionally built incompatible ecosystems.
See earlier comment about consumer devices.
Office suites have Google sharing an MS Office-compatible suite they purchased. Apple has MS Office on its platform. But no real competition or innovation.
Who aside from Microsoft runs a gaming platform?
What looks like open competition gets a lot narrower in overlap once you look at the details.
Which is exactly what you'd expect, if you allowed companies to get too big and too dominant: they're not dumb, so they strategically rig the game in their favor to disadvantage new entrants, while carteling with similarly sized peers to ensure everyone mostly stays out of each other's pools.
I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions.
I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
> even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.
It’s a reasonable take meant to explain GPs statement and sentiment regardless of the underlying truth of his statement and pushing back on what I found to be unfounded sarcasm that added nothing to the conversation.
It's fairly common to see legislation that the general public will not favor be passed on a bipartisan basis by a lame duck Congress, especially when you have a large number of legislators who are no longer constrained by the need to be reelected.
The moderate Democrats and the establishment Republicans have the same donors.
The Senate majority leader controls what legislation makes it to the Senate floor.
Frankly, most legislation that favors the interests of wealthy donors is bipartisan.
For instance, the legislation that rolled back the banking reforms put into place after the financial crisis during the first Trump term.
> the bill, which was years in the making, was a rare bipartisan accomplishment at a time when Congress is gridlocked on almost all major issues.
Sixteen moderate Senate Democrats helped Republicans pass the bill. It was an unusual moment of political unity that sparked a public feud in which the Democratic Party’s progressive wing went to war with its more business-friendly centrists.
Considering a Republican introduced it, I don't think they are.
The strategy might be to introduce it now, and use the fact that it failed the Democratic-lead lame duck session to sell it to the people in the next Congress.
Yeah maybe Musk can clue him in that they’re stupid. Hopefully he doesn’t flip to the pro side though now that he’s big enough to be the bully with the patents.
This seems obviously wrong - the least you expect is of course for them to accomplish the goals of their position. If that requires physical presence, then obviously that's part if the deal implicitly. But for tons of jobs, that's part of the "above and beyond" bucket. I.e. things like after-hours availability, that may improve outcomes, but actually have downsides that mean they could be net negatives depending on the specific job and the specific individuals.
Aside from such executive blindness, the only other reason anybody alive still thinks of commuting and in-office work in more innocent terms is because up until very recently (generationally speaking) they were simply a physical necessity for nearly 100% of jobs, so there was nothing to be gained by dwelling on it. That changed, so the acceptance of petty suffering changed. Also, the fact that the ratio of life improvement to hard work has steadily decreased since those times motivates employees to find other means of maintaining sanity.
