I don't think that's entirely true. Microsoft profited from conditions that were available at the time Microsoft was conceived. It seems to me that the busine

I don't think that's entirely true. Microsoft profited from conditions that were available at the time Microsoft was conceived. It seems to me that the business model that Microsoft was founded on, involved using it's ubiquity to create of new markets via proprietary software products. Proprietary software requires a closed source model, and (if sold) also involves enforcing artificial scarcity. Operating a software company in this way, is entirely compatible with a business model that involves creating monopolies and killing competition - especially when a company's as ubiquitous as Microsoft was(/is). I think government intervention played a part in showing that there's a line of acceptability (that MS crossed) - and the part it played shouldn't be downplayed. -- Cut to the present day, and the conditions have continued evolving to a point where Microsoft's business model isn't as viable anymore. I don't think anyone specifically chose to change the rules. Logic and necessity have forced a cultural change, which has helped more people to rethink how software is sold - selling software as IP isn't sustainable; economics has evolved and new markets, ecosystems and concepts are creating conditions which leave Microsoft out of its depth.