This is the best summary I could come up with:

You might not expect an antitrust trial focused on Google’s overwhelming dominance in the year 2023 to spend a lot of time talking about Internet Explorer circa 2005.

One exhibit proved particularly interesting: a letter from Google’s then-top lawyer David Drummond, sent on July 22nd, 2005, to Microsoft’s then-general counsel Brad Smith.

Microsoft was tech’s dominant player and a ruthless competitor, Pichai argued, and it was doing an acceptable thing — prioritizing its own products — in a uniquely shady way.

“I realized for the first time the internet would touch most of humanity and it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity.” He quoted Google’s original mission without missing a beat, and said that “if anything, it’s more timeless and relevant than ever before.”

Google uses the rev-share structure to incentivize Android OEMs like Samsung, HTC, and Motorola to promote their devices, he said, and even maintain them better over time.

(When Judge Amit Mehta asked how that worked, Pichai said Google makes some of its rev-share money dependent on devices getting security updates.

The original article contains 1,280 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

You're not evil, you're just a cunt 🤷

So companies are people when it's convenient for them to be so, and 'just a business' when it isn't.

Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two pictures.

Sundari: Lol, obviously the left usess g255 and the right side has g254 in their RGB codes. Can you not tell the difference?

The why’d they remove their evil canary clause from their mission statement