The problem with Flynn's argument is that he is thinking that the small plane is entitled to use the airport that the other company built.

Why does Flynn think they have the right to use the airport? It's not a public airport. The gov't didn't build it.

That figurative airport basically belongs to the shareholders I believe. Maybe they should decide who gets to use it.

It seems to me if the gov't really wanted to foster a competitive marketplace, they wouldn't force the company to remove features. If the other company wants to take away customers, why can't they build their own skyscraper?

I don’t understand why MS should be required to provide access to Windows client OSs secrets. Windows client OSs do not compete with competitors’ server OSs: both groups of OSs belong to separate markets. Even if some fancy redefining of the software markets to create a ‘print and file network workgroup’ market is done: it is one thing to block competitors from competing with you in a market, it is another thing to be required to help them compete with you in that market at your expense. Beyond the fact that I don’t believe the defining of a new (‘print and file network workgroup’) market to support this case passes the giggle test, what the EC has done with regards to the definition of this new market is absurd. It is like saying that because MS Word includes an equation editor feature, MS word holds a monopoly in the equation editor market, and must acquiesce to the demands of competitors who sell equation editor software, or who include equation editor functionality in their software, so that their software can interoperate or compete better with MS Word’s equation editor. MS was found in violation of antitrust law when it sought to block Java (middlware) from competing with Windows. Why? Because Java posed a substantial threat to Windows client OSs themselves: not merely to a feature of the OSs. The EC is obviously reaching in this case, and it is doing so in an effort to regulate the software industry in Europe. MS’ competitors are so fixated on taking down the software giant, they don’t even care that they are laboring hard to put their own selves under government regulation.

I agree. The weird part about this is it's like someone walked up to Bill Gates and asked him what he's building. He responds, "I'm building a skyscraper". A lawyer walks up and asks, "How about building an airport?". Gates replys, "I don't want to build an airport, I started building a skyscraper and that's what I intend to complete."

I think they should just leave Gates alone and let him build his skyscraper. It's a free country(s), if the other guy needs an airport, well, they should call the airport construction people and get busy.

In any case, as the growing market share of Firefox proves, bundling something with the OS does not make it invincible...the better product always wins..if the courts don't mess up.

You're absolutely correct: consumers have plenty of choices. Some people like Coca-Cola, some people like Pepsi.