I agree with you, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I worked for Microsoft in 2001 and 2003, and recently rejoined the company. I have had enough tim

I agree with you, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I worked for Microsoft in 2001 and 2003, and recently rejoined the company. I have had enough time away from Microsoft that I feel safe in saying that I have perspective both from the inside and from the outside. The biggest drawback that I saw from the DOJ decision was that Microsoft was not allowed to innovate. Windows 98 and Active Desktop can be considered an early precursor to today's web applications like Chrome packaged apps and Firefox apps. How might the application landscape look today if XP were firmly rooted in the concept of web applications rather than native applications? The decision against Microsoft actually slowed them down and allowed them to slowly outlast their competitors. Instead of fighting a browser war, Netscape might have pivoted and created a Chrome OS like operating system that ran on top of Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. Google might have become known for creating a rich set of web-centric APIs that Netscape OS leveraged. Instead, Netscape got stuck in an entrenched losing battle over a product. It was myopia that defeated them. The DOJ decision delayed the inevitable and it caused Netscape to waste resources thinking they had a chance in a "fair" fight. The Web 2.0 revolution was poised to take place on the desktop rather than in the browser. As a result, I think we all have suffered a 15 year setback. I feel in the same way that an EU decision against Google won't correct any injustices, but it might stifle innovation; and not just innovation from Google, but its competitors as well.