[rollingdeep]

When you are FB or Google or Amazon or you know... Microsoft... there are issues with how the government could ever effectively regulate such an industry with outsized funds (much larger than the fixed regulatory budgets) and power (influencing people and elections). The legal process was never designed to work effectively or efficiently at such a level. The legal process becomes such a war of attrition that you can weather any investigation as Microsoft did.

[nradov]

Microsoft was forced to pay a large fine and significantly change their business practices. The goal was never to destroy Microsoft, and even if the government could have somehow done so that wouldn't have benefited consumers.

[TheRealDunkirk]

Feh. It was a proverbial slap on the wrist. But you're absolutely right: it wasn't about destruction.

At the start of the trial, Microsoft "only" gave about $10K to political campaigns. By the end, they were giving $1M to BOTH parties each year. This was the real problem. The government extorted them for political cover. And it's not like they were picking on them; they just forced them to start paying into the system in proportion to their success, like everyone else is expected to at that level.

[rollingdeep]

The outcome was a settlement as a slap on the wrist for a company that size and that arrogant (did you watch Gates’ testimony?). Really no significant business practices were forced to change either.