Anti-Trust laws are BS! They should not be being used to bully Amazon - nor Microsoft, Google, Apple, or anyone else. This is the epitome of regulatory nonsense that inspires big business fascist/socialist cronyism. I have also been in IT for decades and watched Microsoft be torn up over this Anti-Trust vomit. They should be in a much better place now - but I have felt - since their brush with the government's Anti-Trust BS - that they have always been afraid - and have intentionally held themselves back in fear of opening that door again.

I understand why Netscape was upset that Microsoft was exposing APIs that didn't work correctly. But Microsoft didn't have to release ANY APIs for anyone to use. Microsoft developed their own internal code that they did not give public access to - that worked the way they wanted it to (which is TOTALLY their right as it is their property). The notion that Microsoft somehow owed it the outside competing developers to write core components to aid them was stupid nonsense. Only in the realm of anti-individual anti-property rights could someone believe they should have. If Netscape didn't like Microsoft's APIs - then write their own classes and code to do what they needed. Would it be more work? Sure - but who the hell were they or anyone else to demand that Microsoft aid their competitors? How insane!

The same goes for Novel. They were obviously dependent on Microsoft to justify their existence based on the premise that MS Office was being constantly modified in ways that caused Novel problems. If they were not - then Office changes would have been of no consequence. So again - should Microsoft - with a competing OS and network sub-system be required to play nice with their competitor to help them by stifling their own progress? Again that is ridiculous! These examples and others like them are what is allowing companies to use the government to force one company to sacrifice itself to the interests of another.

The only real monopolies that need dealt with are those using the government via pull, favor, cronyism, to effectively force others. Capitalist companies that gain the market share because people and businesses want to use their products and services based on the merit and value they receive in their mutually agreed upon exchange are justified to be "monopolies". Rand explains this quite well in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. If these companies sell a product/service that people want, the price is deemed agreeable between them and their customers, competitors are not producing superior products and/or for better cost - then they earn their position as the top business. If they overcharge for the value they give - new competitors can enter the picture and supply and demand will handle the outcome. If they produce an inferior product - the same thing will happen. And, it is up to the free customers to decide what it important to them. If they decide a lesser capable networking sub-system is acceptable for the easier to use front end - or available applications, etc... then so be it.

I for one was never a fan of Novel. I didn't like their pricing model and they were, in my opinion, a PITA to setup. They didn't play nice with too many systems and software and so on. I, and my customers, preferred a single, integrated system - that did what they wanted it to do without the additional layers, complexities, and costs. Or, does the customer's opinion not matter? Does Microsoft do stuff that irritates me - surely! They still do - but it's a matter of weighing the benefits, costs, use, etc...

I also use multiple ISP's, hosting providers/cloud systems, etc. I look for ones that provide the tech and the services I am looking for. If Microsoft does not want to play nice with their competitor Amazon and vice verse - what the hell sense does it make for me to demand of them that they do so - to the extent they I want them to equally give me options of using their competitors solutions? That is so backward that it is mind numbing that someone would expect this! It's unbelievable to me - especially for people supposedly operating on the idea that individuals are free and individuals/business are allowed to pursue their own happiness, interests, property, etc. May I as a customer want a provider that gives me all the options I may want - all in one place - making it easier for me to have an optimal system with easier management and control - sure - but to the extent that they self immolate to do it - no - that's absurd!

In short it is their duty to do the best they can - produce the best product for the best price and if it kills all others in the market because that is what the market wants and they have become so efficient and effective - then so be it. Unless they use government to force others out, or take a gun to their competitors - this is the core of what we want from capitalism - the best for the best price - not self destruction by ignoring improvements or deals to be made in an effort to artificially hold up one's competitor.

Well I sure wish the U S Trade Commission would report on the USMCA Trade Agreement. That thing has some disturbing things in it. Reminds me of GHWB's 'One World Theory'.

Could use a look into Google and Apple as well. AWS does heavily push its tool and utilities, much like Microsoft pushes the hell out of Azure and its Email platforms with Windows 2019 Server and Win10.

I'm all for favoring your own utilities and even making them advantages for clients to use them but to have ads and suggestions to vendor proprietary tools and utilities CONSTANTLY bombard you grows old fast. These companies pay others to talk up their products more favorably than their competition and then other people they pay (or provided substantial advantage to) spam you relentlessly.

Point of reference: Microsoft killed Novell by changing its desktop applications (Office) enough on a regular schedule to force Novell to work to keep themselves relevant to their base, it failed, Novell became too problematic causing companies to spend money on IT to fix the problem - enter Windows NT, an inferior product that worked well, seamlessly even, with office.

I've been in IT for decades and I now manage a large full range tech diversified network. We use AWS, Microsoft, Google and Apple...they can all stand to allow for increased competition..especially Amazon, try buying anything Tech without Amazon...I must have spent $20-30K in 2019 with Amazon because the shopping field is very thin, components are expensive and shipping costs are outrageous.

Let's see, Wall Street wants more volatility in AMZN share price (to make more money for themselves without working), so they go short AMZN (and long the competition) and get government to start a lawsuit against AMZN. Then they cover the shorts (sell the longs) and get government lawyers to back down, after wasting a lot of money and lining the pockets of looters.

It is amazing that this section of law is still allowed to exist! Why it has not been thrown out as unconstitutional is ridiculous with its contradictions, arbitrary uses/definitions, etc. Anyone can be abused using these laws - unless reverting to cronyism to buy/bribe your way out - which may not even be possible depending on the politics in play.