I mostly agree, but I must take slight issue with the point about imposing a significant cost being morally unquestionable. Microsoft, to follow the example, ha

I mostly agree, but I must take slight issue with the point about imposing a significant cost being morally unquestionable. Microsoft, to follow the example, has gained an unfair monopoly, and has exploited such to prevent possibly superior products from reaching acceptance. Moreover, Microsoft has abused the patent system to shut out still more potential competitors, and enforce vendor lock-in (see, for example, patent disputes with OOXML). Thus, I submit that Microsoft imposes a disproportionally large cost to society for what benefits it gives, and therefore can be said to be acting in an immoral fashion. That is, Microsoft makes their profits directly at the cost of society's happiness, which is immoral by a utilitarian view. Now, far be it for me to pick at MS in exclusivity-- they were simply a convenient example. Rather, I only mean to illustrate that the moral questions of a monopoly in technology (be it hardware or software) are not completely dissolved in an affluent society, but only reduced.