While your request is not in principle unreasonable, it&#x27;s way too much work for me to prove it to your satisfaction, or my satisfaction in a formal, balanced, I&#x27;d be willing to publish it way.  E.g. I&#x27;d forgotten about I4i, despite the prominence of the case.<p>I&#x27;m basically asking you, absent either of us going beyond searches like <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=list+of+microsoft+crimes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=list+of+microsoft+crimes</a> ^_^, to trust my observations of these businesses since the fall of 1977 when I started in the field.  Heck, I was a great fan of Microsoft until NT 3.51 SP2 (and for a while beyond, it was Vista that completed the job).  It was a pattern of behavior that became more and more obvious sometime in the late &#x27;90s that changed my opinion of the company, capped with their all out illegitimate assault on Linux and FOSS starting in the early &#x27;00s.  And I of course don&#x27;t expect you to take my word for it.<p>I just don&#x27;t see it in their peers, not even Oracle.<p>Ah, here&#x27;s a different angle: name the <i>healthy</i> peers that are willing to work with Microsoft today, beyond what&#x27;s absolutely required.  Yahoo! fails hard on healthy, Mozilla potentially as hard.  I don&#x27;t understand why&#x2F;how Yahoo! is still in business, but Mozilla sure seems to be in their endgame (one reason I&#x27;m avoiding Rust for the time being).