Resistance wasn't futile, after all

In Winners, Losers & Microsoft, Stan Liebowitz and Steve Margolis made the nearly airtight case that there was nothing about high technology markets that would lock-in consumers to an inferior product, nor prevent superior products that come along displacing established standards. Specifically, that Microsoft--in 1999, at the time the book was published--had attained its industry leading position by providing better products than its competitors, and did not have an impregnable monopoly.

Looks like they were right;

Microsoft Corp...unveiled a broad reorganization Thursday, aiming to break down barriers between its internal units and potential partners outside the company.

....[CEO Steve] Ballmer said the move is designed to make sure that the company runs "holistically, not as a set of islands."

The company's product-focused units have been known for sometimes acting at cross-purposes, competing for resources and not sharing technologies or moving as quickly as possible. Mr. Ballmer, in a memo to employees, acknowledged that such problems can no longer be tolerated as Microsoft scrambles to catch up in technology trends such as mobile devices and so-called "cloud" offerings.

Iow, competition evolved the market, and Microsoft is behind in some areas. Now they're scrambling to re-gain market share. According to the anti-trust case, U.S. v. Microsoft from early in the 21st century, that was supposed to have been impossible. Do the taxpayers get a refund for the millions spent prosecuting Microsoft?