Originally Posted by Sil_liS
I'm wondering if Microsoft might try to limit its success. After all, if it tried had enough a court might decide to split the company up, like it almost happened in 2000.
It seems to me that the decision to make Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) the default anti-virus for Windows 8 is the kind of decision they would not
make if consumed with anti-trust worries.* However, it's just two years since they got out from under supervision. See: The Anti-Trust Curse: What Apple Can Learn from Microsoft, IBM
Microsoft lost the case in 2002, and was subject to DOJ monitoring of its behavior for another eight years after that. It fundamentally changed the company. . . .
"Working at Microsoft today vs. five years ago is different," Kroese said. "If anyone thinks the antitrust case hasn't slowed us down, you're wrong. If I want to meet with a products manager for Windows, there needs to be three lawyers in the room. We have to be so careful, we err on the side of caution. We are on such a fine line of conduct."
* Or am I wrong on the default anti-virus facts here? MSE is default with a home-built Windows 8 PC, but what what about a name-brand unit with bloatware? Does anyone know?