Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Microsoft is very heavily lobbying organizations to use edge as a standard browser right now. They're doing the same to us. It's really annoying. They're hell-bent on increasing marketshare no matter what.



In the last months I have heard everything from MS including "Firefox is the #1 source of security bugs in enterprise" and the like.


Since that's verifiably false, why hasn't Mozilla filed a defamation lawsuit over it?


It would be interesting if Google tweaked their Chromium licensing so that Edge couldn't use it. Then Microsoft wouldn't have a browser at all.


Microsoft could just keep an independent fork—just match features at a slower pace. Google can't change the license of Blink, their renderer, since it's a fork of KDE's LGPL renderer.


gnu license is working as intended - helping… microsoft? I guess

edit: but honestly, Google could go Apple open source way, making code changes in huge dumps that are impossible to integrate back. But I an not sure it’s worth the trouble.


That's the weird thing about Microsoft expanding marketshare.

If they'd actually succeed in capturing the majority of the market, there's a big chance Google would throw in the towel and then what??


Then they stop all development. It already happened with IE6. Took a decade to decrown it even though for all intents and purposes it was a dead browser.


And they wouldn't even need to stoop so low as to make it non-FOSS. Just making it GPLv3+ would probably do it.


Or “we like open source software and ‘freedom’ as long as it is used by the right people in a way that I agree with”


[flagged]


Most of these patent numbers seem to be incorrect; all the numbers except for the first one seem to point to unrelated patents.

I was curious about the email one, but "7,536,726" points to a different Microsoft patent (also expired), and I couldn't find a patent with the name "System and method for providing remote access to electronic mail".


I did wonder about the ethics of pasting a list derived from ChatGPT without checking them personally. Thanks for doing the legwork on that.

What I'm finding (over the last few minutes of experimentation) is that patent references in ChatGPT are valid, but tend to have the wrong numbers associated with them. If you ask it to summarize the claims in a given patent, it will sometimes pull up the wrong patent. Interestingly, you can correct it with a suitable prompt -- see one example at https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png -- at which point it will do the right thing or at least come close to it.

Anyway, the point stands: there is only so much Google can do to stand up to Microsoft. Royalties in 2013 reached $2 billion ( https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... ) and it's safe to say they didn't stop filing bullshit patents in 2013.


Don't you think it's unethical to spread misinformation like this without doing your due diligence in checking?


Yep.

But do you care to address the actual point, which is still correct even if a few patent numbers are wrong?

Would it have been better not to mention specific patents at all?


Wow all low-hanging fruit patent-troll type of stuff :( The patent system is so broken.


trying to get rid of a nother IM client at my place. everyone hates it because the one they are replacing is very simple and quick


Lobbying? Please describe


Constantly hanging out with the senior management praising Edge. As they say "Microsoft is better at talking to your boss than you do".

Also their consultants are trained to be shills. Every time we have a call with them they will remark about it if we use another browser, even though their area of expertise has nothing to do with it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: