> That is not a ban on Trident browsers. It just prevents Microsoft from creating or funding new Trident-based browsers to add to the list
I do not see how to parse the rule in the way you suggest. First, in legalese you normally use "and" here, even if you technically mean "and/or". Second, Microsoft is already forbidden from featuring other browsers that they fund by clause 10, so unless the point of this clause was to block Trident browsers, it would be redundant. Third, if we parse this in the way you suggest, we reach the conclusion that Microsoft is allowed to feature a browser they fund as long as it is not Trident-based, which is obviously nonsensical.
IANAL, but the only way to parse this that makes any sense is that it prevents Trident browsers AND it prevents browsers funded (partially AND not partially) by Microsoft.
> In fact, the browser selection was based on market share, and the ordering was alphabetical, and this was documented in the agreement and in the news.
Actually no, the ordering was random, and this was _again_ published in mainstream media and IIRC again featured here in HN, because there was a complain that the actual distribution used was not uniform at all https://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/microsoft-ballot-screen/ .
Technically legal to do that since the agreement didn't specify the uniformity of the random distribution, but obviously dark-ish and flying against the spirit of the law. Microsoft eventually fixed it.
> Which means [the auctions] never happened. If it had, there would have been news about Microsoft doing it instead of Google.
Fair enough.
However we have plenty of evidence that they have done whatever they wanted.
In fact I have now learnt that they decided to literally not show this screen to Windows 7 users for over a year with no apparent reason https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21684329 .
I do not see how to parse the rule in the way you suggest. First, in legalese you normally use "and" here, even if you technically mean "and/or". Second, Microsoft is already forbidden from featuring other browsers that they fund by clause 10, so unless the point of this clause was to block Trident browsers, it would be redundant. Third, if we parse this in the way you suggest, we reach the conclusion that Microsoft is allowed to feature a browser they fund as long as it is not Trident-based, which is obviously nonsensical.
IANAL, but the only way to parse this that makes any sense is that it prevents Trident browsers AND it prevents browsers funded (partially AND not partially) by Microsoft.
> In fact, the browser selection was based on market share, and the ordering was alphabetical, and this was documented in the agreement and in the news.
Actually no, the ordering was random, and this was _again_ published in mainstream media and IIRC again featured here in HN, because there was a complain that the actual distribution used was not uniform at all https://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/microsoft-ballot-screen/ .
Technically legal to do that since the agreement didn't specify the uniformity of the random distribution, but obviously dark-ish and flying against the spirit of the law. Microsoft eventually fixed it.
And if the selection was purely "for the top 12 browsers by market share to be included in the screen", then Seamonkey or even Netscape would have been included on top of browsers like "Slepneir" https://sleipnir.en.lo4d.com/windows (which happens to be Gecko). It's definitely not as simple as you're suggesting and other rules had more priority, plus whatever "metrics" they used behind the scenes since they added and removed browsers a volonté. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#Revisions
> Which means [the auctions] never happened. If it had, there would have been news about Microsoft doing it instead of Google.
Fair enough.
However we have plenty of evidence that they have done whatever they wanted.
In fact I have now learnt that they decided to literally not show this screen to Windows 7 users for over a year with no apparent reason https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21684329 .