[jacobolus]

> The theory behind free market capitalism is that enough companies doing the same will average out to the best results.

You left out the part about how this only works if (a) the market is actually “free” and “competitive” (what this means is a complicated topic beyond the scope of this text box), and (b) the interests of the company and the interests of the broader society are aligned. (Which is why we have all sorts of specialized regulation of companies, various kinds of guaranteed rights attached to consumers and contract-signers and so on, a court system, and ultimately elections). In the specific case of Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, they clearly were not. The idea that Microsoft’s corporate strategy embodied some kind of Adam Smith small-firms-in-a-competitive-market ideal is hogwash. Notice that Microsoft’s actions were found to be illegal in several court battles.

It is definitely not a company’s fiduciary duty to break the law.

[Bricejm]

Free market capitalism is supposed to be about innovation and competition. You have to weigh the good with the bad. Has Microsoft probably had an advantage that pushed others out of business - yes, but I'm sure they also inspired programmers to create new products that they could then sell to Microsoft/Google type companies. It's hard to say if large companies create or destroy innovation and competition. There will always be positives and negatives.

[adamtj]

What does "free" even mean? Does it mean free from any outside interference? So, no laws and anything goes? Then is it still free if a company uses that freedom to restrict the actions of others with "uncompetitive" strategies? Or does it mean free to do anything that isn't "unfair" or "uncompetitive", where somebody other than the actor decides if the action is fair and prohibits it if not?