I find it hard to believe that any court could legally stop Google from developing a new browser if they were forced to sell Chrome.

Any court today? Maybe. Similar arrangements have been pretty common, though.

then you don't understand how any of this works

Yes because government regulation of tech has been so successful in the past. Just look at how well the anti trust lawsuit against IBM went - that they later just dropped because it wasn’t relevant anymore - or the Microsoft lawsuit in 2000.

No there was never a browser choice mandate in the US

I think the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit was neutered on purpose by the Bush administration.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/sep/07/microsoft...

> Yes because government regulation of tech has been so successful in the past. Just look at how well the anti trust lawsuit against IBM went - that they later just dropped because it wasn’t relevant anymore - or the Microsoft lawsuit in 2000.

You can surely do better than these examples. Nobody would be better for lack of action against IBM, and lack of serious action against microsoft continues to hurt us today. C'mon. Break these useless, unproductive fuckers up.

Yes because of the Microsoft monopoly, other tech companies have failed to thrive.

Their monopolistic behavior in Windows led to their current browser, mobile, cloud, and game console dominance.

So Google could also not ship a browser with Android devices? Chromebooks?

Selling devices with a browser installed or available for installation is completely tangential to creating and/or controlling the development of said browser.

Would Google not be allowed to make any changes to the open source Chromium browser before installing it on its own hardware?