If I may paraphrase: "Never forget that large monopolies can wield disgusting influence, but don't let hate for past monopolies blind you to modern monopolies either" :-)
> don't let hate for past monopolies blind you to modern monopolies either
Just because Microsoft is no longer the monopoly-du-jour, doesn't mean they aren't still a monopoly...
Just because they have been making (successful) forays into open-source, does not mean they won't still fiercely protect (with whatever means at their disposal) their monopoly cash cows (Windows and Office).
The "standartization" of Office Open XML wasn't all that long ago, after all (ECMA in 2006, ISO in 2008).
Windows is a legitimate cash cow, but because of server installs.
Office makes a lot of money; SQL Server and other datacenter products make much more.
> Windows is a legitimate cash cow, but because of server installs. Office makes a lot of money; SQL Server and other datacenter products make much more.
And yet on the server Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
Consider that the main reason Microsoft has a profitable business selling server software is because of their desktop monopolies through many diverse paths.
Just because Microsoft is no longer the monopoly-du-jour, doesn't mean they aren't still a monopoly...
Just because they have been making (successful) forays into open-source, does not mean they won't still fiercely protect (with whatever means at their disposal) their monopoly cash cows (Windows and Office).
The "standartization" of Office Open XML wasn't all that long ago, after all (ECMA in 2006, ISO in 2008).