Google went about it strategically. First it peeled of the low hanging fruit, people who don't need all the bells and whistles of a full suite with Google docs/apps. Then it leveraged the central server doing the edits, to create a collaborative edit features that were well ahead of MsOffice when it was introduced. Priced it cheap, pitched it to the enterprises. When it was forcing Microsoft to scramble to offer collaboration tools, Apple helped in the upgrade tread mill battle. In an earlier era, the top exec gets the latest and greatest laptop every six months with latest Office pre-installed and starts belting out documents in the latest format. IT will upgrade rest of the corp. But Apple took all the top execs with its iPad, and now PC is not the latest toy these top honchos were getting. Side effect: The corporate upgrade treadmill slowed down significantly.
Now it is going for the last section that really needs all the bells and whistles of a full fledged office suite. Instead of spending the money to reinvent the wheel inside google docs, it is just using the well established code base of OpenOffice and the ODF. Even though Microsoft lost the mind share and the market share in percentage terms, its cash cows were producing milk at the same old prodigal rate. Cutting off a significant portion of the MsOffice revenue stream is important for Google's business ops in other spheres. Else Microsoft will under cut it. It even tried to pay people to use Bing.
Google does not really want to make much money off its google docs franchise. It uses it just to crimp the revenue stream of Microsoft. It is making money elsewhere.
Get used to it, you'll have more of them as you get older.
I got that covered buddy. I am not planning to get older. "Paging, Dr Kevorkian... Dr Kevorkian... customer needs assistance in departure lounge
So instead of making general law changes asking for broad restrictions to patented drugs, the government can make the case for specific patents, show the public interest, take it over turn to the generic manufacturers.
Take a look at the Microsoft MsOffice market. It was selling perpetual licenses, and to maintain revenue growth it kept raising the prices. After reaching impossible for software prices like 500$ for a full office suite, 150$ for Excel+Word they could not sustain it anymore. Google stepped in with a low end Cloud-Office suite at 50$ a pop per year and made serious inroads into MsOffice monopoly. The first serious challenge, the first challenge to MsOffice franchise that got traction was GoogleDocs. We might laugh at the mickey mouse features of GoogleDocs compared to MsOffice, we might see OpenOffice and LibreOffice are far more serious implementations. But, on the ground, GoogleDocs had just two things going for it. Extremely good collaboration features and a tempting "it is just 50$, let us try it for a while" price. Now Microsoft is pitching OfficeLive365 as 50$ a year all you can eat buffet. It used to sell the entire suite for 50$ in the 1990s, student version perpetual license were 30$ as recently 2009. Now?
Almost all the software companies want to go into subscription model, software as service, rent not own, model. All the media companies too. Price blue-ray disc at 25$, but stream HD rental at 5$. Rent, not own. That is the way all media and software companies are evolving into.