[Azred]

I have never seen any compelling argument that has convinced me why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to bundle whatever software it chooses. If you go to buy a Ford, shouldn't you be allowed the choice of a Chevrolet engine? If not, then the Ford technology is "bundled", and that apparently isn't right. Shouldn't you have the choice of having McDonald's fries with your Sonic burger?
The world is business is dog-eat-dog. Yes, it is a shame that many software companies are not as large as Microsoft, but Microsoft was there first. If you have a software company whose product outperforms a comparable Microsoft product then you must use every avenue available to let customers know that your product is better, even if that means giving away free samples at technology shows or to tech magazines to generate some positive press.

Strangely enough, the one thing that Microsoft has always adamantly refused to do--release Windows source code--is the one thing that would catapult them to even greater success. The source code would allow all sorts of programmers and companies to create new applications. Naturally, set it up so that creation of a product using Windows source code means that the developer must pay Microsoft a royalty on profits generated from that product in perpetuity. Now that a net present value that would make a CFO faint from joy!