Not really. The amount of time and money for DOJ to prosecute microsoft the first time was huge, and there are competing virtual desktops, so good luck getting them on this point.
Antitrust cases against big companies are always going to be expensive, but one of the many stupid things the DOJ and states did in the Microsoft case was making Microsoft fight for its life. It was unnecessarily aggressive and drove up the expense.
And, there were competing browsers and operating systems during the first case, too. The mere existence of competitors does not preclude antitrust action. Just ask AT&T and T-Mobile.
> The mere existence of competitors does not preclude antitrust action.
Agreed. I just don't see the anti-competitive behavior around virtual desktops that we did with WinOS and IE, so I think it would be a very tough sell.
What are the reasons to favor one specific vendor giving it a key advantage over the other? Microsoft seems to be clearly playing favorites here. What are they trying to do? Give a monopoly to their favorite vendor? Is it legal to use your monopoly to expand someone else's? Can we really call this company, with its seemingly deep and strong ties to Microsoft, a separate entity? If it's not, this is clearly something the DoJ should look into.
