Give Microsoft a break!
All you bearded sandal-wearing Linux lovers are living in some paranoid world where the best arguments you can give against Microsoft are nothing more than ad-hominem attacking rants.
Anyone who lives in the real world would be able to tell you that Microsoft's only aim is to promote innovation by giving the user the best software and the quality and usability of their software is all they need to wipe out their under-achieving rivals.
Microsoft would never stoop to pressurising computer manufacturers to deliberately lock out their competition and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to forced to read Groklaw for the rest of their lives.
(Now, how do I submit this - control-V isn't it?)
Preclusive effect should be given to the following statement of liability rulings made by the D.C. Circuit. The introductory sentence is taken verbatim from the Fourth Circuit opinion In re Microsoft Corp Antitrust Litigation, 355 F 3d 322 328 (4th Cir 2004). The descriptions of individual types of illegal conduct are taken verbatim (except for citations and quotation marks) from Microsoft's Memorandum in Opposition to Burst's Motion to Apply Collateral Estoppel to 311 Findings of Fact and 15 Excerpts from the D.C. Circuit's Opinion in the Government Case, at 5-6 (July 1 2004)
Microsoft illegally maintained a monopoly in the market of licensing of all Intel compatible PC operating systems worldwide through 12 specified acts of anticompetitive conduct
1. Microsoft's Windows license agreements improperly prohibited computer manufacturers ("OEMs") from removing visible means of user access to Internet Explorer (i.e. desktop icons, folders and "Start" menu entries);
2. Microsoft's Windows license agreements improperly prohibited OEMs from modifying the initial Windows boot sequence to promote the services of Internet Access Providers ("IAPS")
3. Microsoft's Windows license agreements improperly prohibited OEMS from promoting rival Web browsing software by adding to the Windows desktop icons or folders different in size or shape from those supplied by Microsoft;
4. Microsoft s Windows license agreements improperly prohibited OEMs from using the Active Desktop feature of Windows 98 to promote rival Web browsing software;
5. Microsoft improperly excluded Internet Explorer from the Add/Remove Programs utility in Windows 98;
6. Microsoft improperly commingled browsing and non browsing code in the same files in Windows 98;
7. Microsoft improperly agreed to provide easy access to IAPS services from the Windows desktop in return for the IAPS’ agreement to promote Internet Explorer exclusively and to keep shipments of internet access software using Navigator under a specific percentage;
8. Microsoft improperly agreed to provide preferential support to certain software developers in return for their agreement to use (i) [Internet Explorer] as the default Web browsing software for any software they developed with a hypertext based user interface and (ii) Microsoft's HTML Help to implement their applications' help system;
9. Microsoft improperly agreed to release new versions of Office for the Apple Macintosh in return for Apple s agreement to preinstall Internet Explorer and make it the default Web browsing software on new Macintosh computers;
10. Microsoft improperly agreed to give certain software developers preferential access to Windows technical information in return for their agreement to use Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine( JVM ) as the default JVM for their software;
11. Microsoft improperly deceived software developers regarding the Windows specific nature of Microsoft's Java developer tools; and
12. Microsoft improperly pressured Intel to not support cross platform Java by threatening to support technology developed by one of Intel's competitors