Getting sued and taking to court is one thing. Winning is another. Anyone in the US can be taken to court that does not mean guilt. Being a monopoly is not a crime or is it sleazy tactic as you continue to suggest. Sleazy tactic would be MS actively preventing software from running on Windows or actively making competition software that run on windows run worse while their software always outperforms. This is the point I would be looking from you to actually make, not that bundling internet explorer into Windows somehow is a sleazy tactic because one judge thought so.
Bundling Explorer into Windows I would not consider a controlling move unless MS also made it so that no other browser could be run on the system. While being the browser for windows, Safari is the default browser for Mac OS. Its expected by user to have a default browser for the OS more than it being a controlling move. All OS have a default browser, so I still do not see your point. Also Apple bundle pretty good software within the OS just like MS bundle basic software within Windows. Linux distros also bundling a lot of default software. No one would think paint is preventing someone from using Photoshop but the ideal of having basis features to an OS would not be or is considered a controlling move.
Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.
I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?
As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?
What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?
If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?
I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?