>I completely disagree with this, and believe this type of belief is one of the core problems in society. That's a perfectly valid opinion, however the law sta

>I completely disagree with this, and believe this type of belief is one of the core problems in society. That's a perfectly valid opinion, however the law states otherwise; our society and legal system both reward amoral thinking in corporations. >Corporations are just a social organization of people, and the people of that organization absolutely have ethical and moral obligations. You can believe this all you want, but the people who run the largest corporations disagree, and have no ethics or morals; they're sociopaths. As a society, we reward this by continuing to support companies run by sociopaths, and also by voting for sociopaths to lead our governments. So you can believe whatever you want about how corporations and the people who run them should act, but most people disagree with you implicitly, based on their voting and buying decisions. >Choosing to join a social organization like a corporation does not absolve you of those obligations. You can claim this, but you have absolutely no way of enforcing your belief. Similarly, I could claim that you are personally obligated to buy me a house, and that I think it's the moral thing to do, but I have absolutely no way to enforce this opinion. >For most government regulating entities a monopoly is created when a company reaches over 80/90% market share in a given product category, in the 1990's Microsoft was a clear monopoly in the personal computing market. Today that is debatable if you include Smartphones, Tablets and other devices in the Category of "Personal Computers" If you include those, then MS is nowhere near a monopoly. Windows Phone is a joke. But if you narrow things down to PCs, then it's murkier, but even here last I heard they had less than 90% thanks to the rise of Apple mainly. >However simply saying "There is an alternative" does not in fact legally mean there is not a monopoly. That's true, but the other thing you're missing, just as you missed with your stuff about ethics above, is enforcement: how exactly do you propose to enforce your opinion? You have no way to; all you can do is hope the government will agree with you and act accordingly. There is zero evidence of this, and instead plenty of evidence that MS will be able to do whatever they want, within reason. So your only choices are to suffer and whine, or switch. >Most people do not actively seek an Operating System, they use what ever operating system is supplied by the manufacturer of the devices Then why are people actively seeking out Macs and iPhones? People who shop for Macbooks don't even bother looking at alternatives, because they do NOT want to run Windows. >MS was charged with was using Vertical Conclusions to lock out alternative operating systems like Linux They were charged, but what happened? Nothing. > Car makers did similar things in the early day with Maintenance, accessories and parts. this resulted in MASSIVE regulation of the Automotive manufacturing industry and passage of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act which electronics companies today like to pretend does not exist A lot of car dealerships pretend that doesn't exist too, but at least there's some legal teeth there. But M-M has almost nothing to do with MS or operating systems or the topic at hand. There is zero evidence that the government is going to pass any legislation to deal with MS's market dominance, so you can either suck it up or find an alternative. >Sadly with Windows 10, they have back peddled even on these provisions, no longer are browsers able to automatically set themselves as default, a user must navigate to the Default Applications Settings and manually change these. Ok, so what are you going to do about it? This just proves my point: hoping for any kind of relief from the government is foolish in the extreme. You can either remain a victim, or you can leave.