Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then God bless that the United States is a Republic[1] and not a Democracy, such that my rights should never be beholden to such contemptible motives. Also, this is a very materialistic view of money. You falsely assume that money's sole use is the acquisition of material goods, and not what it really is, the transfer of value. Wealthy and poor alike choose to donate to and support causes they see as perpetuating the…
Self-righteous indignation ahoy! We must have entered yet another ideal-free-markets vs. everything else discussion on Hacker News. Frustrated as you may be that others don't share your ideals here, your entire comment is huge, deep red, herring. And there is much more to monopolies than just 'success', you silly. Ever heard of the Microsoft tax? Every OEM was in a losing position if they dared to offer a non-Microso…
You probably won't like this, but those businesses existed because of what Microsoft created and it deserved to charge whatever it liked to its customers. We are speaking here of rights, not virtues or morality, so you'll find my "self-righteous indignation" to be in short supply. Just as Microsoft was free to charge what they liked for the fruits of their labor, OEMs were free to not attempt to profit off a product Microsoft created. Microsoft made its money from selling software, an intangible thing of no value without hardware to run it on. Those OEMs existed because they were able to create hardware better than Microsoft. Obviously though, it was Windows that was of more value (more difficult to create) of the two, which is why Microsoft held more leverage. This is a _good_ thing to have success rewarded.
No company has a right to profits. In a free market they must compete by the merits of the value they offer to free men.