I'm not quite sure what the guy that wrote this article is smoking, but there is pretty much no way LinkedIn is going to push MSFT above the $1 trillion mark. Sure the only thing he claims at that MSFT will make $1 trillion before Apple or Alphabet, but at current growth rates none of those companies are going to be in the ball park of $1 trillion valuation for 5-10 years at least, probably longer. It seems unlikely that LinkedIn is the killer acquisition that is going to drive their growth for the next decade (as opposed to all the license revenue they make from existing established business.)
MSFT's current market value is $491.71 billion. Hypothetically, lets say that being acquired by MSFT does not change the value of LinkedIn at all, if that casepost-merger MSFT would be worth... $491.71 billion, they paid $26 billion in stock + cash for LinkedIn reducing the value of MSFT by $26 billion, then the value of LinkedIn ($26 billion) gets added to their market cap, cancelling out the two effects. Now lets say they double the value of LinkedIn by giving it access to their network of enterprise customers, they MSFT's value becomes $491.71 + $26 = $517.71 billion... a 5% increase in the value of MSFT.
I'm sorry, there is just no plausible scenario where LinkedIn suddenly becomes worth more than the entire rest of MSFT is worth. There is no way LinkedIn is going to double the amount of license revenue they generate. That's the problem that enormous businesses like MSFT have... for almost any other business an extra $500 million of quarterly revenue would be an enormous new windfall that would double their stock's value. For MSFT... it would be an extra 2% growth of quarter revenue, to which Wall Street would yawn and say "Here's your gold star MSFT, stock is up 2% after quarterly earnings." Its hard to create big new percentage growth when all the new technologies are not worth anywhere close to your existing massive business. MSFT's partner Intel has also been facing this problem for over a decade. Just like any other company, Apple and Google are not immune to this and are starting to hit the wall that the burden of massive valuation begets. Any company in this position more or less is forced in to paying dividends and becoming a boring "blue chip" stock. Nothing wrong with it really, take the example of 3M, a diversified technology company that has been a stable steady company. They have increased dividend rates every year for over a century now, and their stock holds strong value long term. I think the tech industry as a whole needs to wake up to the fact that we are rapidly turning in to that type of old but strong and steady business.