"We are pro open source except our entire business model which is build around a closed source platform on which we sell closed source products"
Yeah they're worse than they could be but that's not really the central point.
The legal thing you asked for a source on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Some people dissent from this reading of the case but it's also not that important, in practice they act like this.
It's never time to stop being cautious about megacorps.
To think that Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for altruistic reasons, without a plan to actually turn a profit on the purchase, is dangerously naive.
You thinking tech companies don't have loss-leaders is naive.
I don't really know anything about US laws, but I think they do have to act in the interest of their shareholders, i.e. make them more money.
(My view of capitalism meshes with Churchill's view of democracy: It's the worst except for all the others)
Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. You want to rant about EEE (irrelevant for decades now) or some other silly plan to undermine open source development, feel free. But expect to be called out for your pointless drivel at the same time.
I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore.