Given that the practices going on during the trial were equivalent to obstruction of justice, what is the best case that you could make to argue that Bill Gates, who with Steve Ballmer sets the tone for Microsoft behavior, should be charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and should at the least be forbidden from running _any_ 'baby Microsofts' and at most locked up for a good long time? This assumes that Gates' personality and those of his top henchment sets the tone for not only Microsoft, but for the industry as a whole (which I think is a reasonable statement), and that the chilling effect on innovation and the choking of normal functioning of the industry can be in part attributed to the personality everyone is now worshipping and trying to emulate. Given that the result of this is wrong and unhealthy, why is there so rarely the view that 'Gee, businesswise this guy is a sociopath, mugger and a criminal', why is there so little interest in _removing_ him from any position of power running companies, and what would be a good way to argue this point? Personally, I would say the _greatest_ harm from the monopoly is the brainwashing of the entire world to believe that Bill Gates is someone to be emulated and rewarded, rather than the unprincipled business equivalent of a Mafia chieftain, someone who should be locked up, not lionized. That's _personally_, again: I think the man is _personally_ a sociopath and should not be allowed to run businesses, much less given control of one of the baby-MSes of a breakup. So, how do you make that stick?