I do apply the same standard to gecko. [...] However those criticisms are immaterial to the decision this judge had to make.

Then your "same deal with webkit" statement was equally immaterial.

its not a contradiction. the difference here is every browser you mentioned as ‘alternatives’ are not well funded dont actively add new functionality in the same way mozilla/google do.

That argument isn't negating the sentence I wrote. I think you used "incorrect" when you meant "correct, but...".

However, I don't think Mozilla is better funded than Apple and the other companies I mentioned behind Webkit.

And I didn't directly mention specific chromium browsers as 'alternatives'.. the alternatives I was talking about were options those browsers could take against Google... I don't think you understood the point.

which is completely immaterial when they don’t develop/add new features for the web.

Ironically, NOT developing/adding features has been the major way in which the opposition has been successfully pushing against Google's "standards". Webkit being the second top engine in users and opposing those features while still being a stable and well maintained base (it's not like they don't have a pipeline) with many corporations behind it (not just Apple, even Valve partnered with WebkitGtk maintainers), is a blockade to Google's domination just as much as Gecko.

The web is already bloated enough.. I think we need browsers that are more prudent when it comes to developing/adding new features and instead focus more on maintenance.