>>This is my point about dealing with a rights holder. When they have the rights, you are at their mercy. It's why things need to be re-created to remove those barriers and limitations, and put the rights in the hands of the people en masse.
>
>Microsoft does not have all the rights. I remember they have been fined several times before for violating commercial rules, and some of those amounts were huge. Corporations with dominant market dominion are espacially watched and can not do as they wish.

They do have all the rights. What they were fined for was something else. They violated existing law which prohibited them from moving in certain ways. They were fined for their illegal actions and not for their legal ones.

They were never fined for forcing all PC vendors to pay them for DOS or Windows or both when new PC hardware was sold in the 90s, for example. That was legal, though it was completely unethical in my opinion.

>I imagine, if you could prove that the supplier would purposefully limit compatibility to the own (!) eco system, and then they change the eco system without considering their own products they sold, you've got a good case at hand. Software is being scrutinized differently than actual physical products, because by redistributing and reselling software you do not have the production cost as you had with tapes for instance.

There are anti-trust laws for that purpose. And Microsoft's been found guilty on multiple continents of violating those laws. So has Intel, by the way, and they manufacture physical products.