>>Exactly. Microsoft was found guilty in courts of law in the U.S. and Europe of wielding their monopoly influence harmfully. They've also had many other nations file lawsuits where they ultimately could not legally prove Microsoft's monopoly in court, but the business environment was sufficient to warrant those several lawsuits arising in the first place.
>>
>>Monopolies piloted by men are always harmful.
>
>I agree, but it goes far deeper than just wielding their monopoly influence, they acted proactively,
>the best example is with DR-DOS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_v._Microsoft. It was good
>for Caldera's owners, as they netted 280 million, but screw customers who lost the possibility or
>choosing. And one thing I do not understand is why they say it was only in Beta, I had this issue
>when I installed Windows at that time, is it possible that they enable the code for outside the states?


It's awful. The same thing happened with Word Perfect. A last minute "design tradeoff" decision was made which prevented WP from working properly in Windows 95 (because Microsoft had Office / Word).

It was all very bad. And today it's more polished and political, covert and hidden, but it's much worse.