Well, quite. It's worth noting that the anti-monopoly laws are retrospective, which means you can be found guilty of things that were not illegal at the time you did them.

If the democratic will of the People is that the government regulates business that's one thing, but retrospective laws are just insidious. A level playing field up front is the only fair way.

Yes, and in the context of the article: the 'pay for every computer' pricing contracts Microsoft pursued to its advantage were not by themselves illegal. They became illegal when used by a firm with monopoly power to stifle competition.

Unfortunately there's no bright-line rule that lets you know that today, you're a monopoly. You might write such a sales contract legally on Monday, and on Wednesday cross the invisible antitrust line which (after years of later largely subjective legal argument) obligated you to stop doing the same things that led to your success. So signing the exact same contract Friday would be illegal.

Just because "The People" democratically wants something doesn't mean it's right.

You're right, but that's not the point I was making.

I'm sure no one was "forced" to sign the contract, but by not signing it and agreeing to Microsoft's terms, you could not distribute Windows and other Microsoft products with your computer..

Just like by not paying for a car you can't go home from the store driving it.

"Just like by not paying for a car you can't go home from the store driving it."

Not quite the same thing IMHO. By not signing the contract and doing what Microsoft wanted, since it was the de-facto standard at the time, you were pretty much kissing your PC sales business goodbye..

Well, hold on... If we're talking about the late 1980s (which the author is), then I'm not sure we could call Windows a de facto standard. I agree with the other poster that Gates simply studied history to determine which sorts of contracts would provide Microsoft with the maximum leverage over time. Other OS vendors could have done the same thing; they simply lacked Gates' intelligence and foresight.

So because they charged what people were willing to pay for a popular product, they were cheating?

Look, anyone can make the offer MS made. If they price it low enough, they could get some takers. It was a smart move, because it meant that a dominant player would have growing market share among manufacturers who worked with them, but it would only work out if the product had traction -- otherwise, dealing with MS would just be paying Bill Gates to watch you fail.

A better comparison might be no longer getting water after not agreeing with the utility company's revised contract that insists you pay them anytime you drink anything, even if it is milk. soda or some other beverage.

To put it simply:

"Hey... Your competitor just signed this deal that allows them to include our OS for pennies. I see you will have a tough time competing with them unless you sign it too".