The problem that all of these "MS should be required to..." solutions have in common, is that they would require direct government regulation to maintain. Some people would argue that that is a good thing, but there are real problems with it. Will this new regulating body only apply to Microsoft, or will it apply to the entire industry?

There are other companies that might eventually gain the power that Microsoft has. If, down the line, MS lost a great deal of its power, or even went out of business (Linux, anyone ;) it would be rediculous to have a regulating body for an obsolete company. On the other hand, if it regulated the entire industry that could be at least as oppressing as Microsoft. Imagine a world where software innovations had to be filtered through a beauracracy before becoming available to the public. Granted, most of the things that were pointed out would be good in the short term. But the minute we say "regulate" there will be abuses. It may work out fine for a while, but eventually big business will bring money and the politicians will follow them, things will change and we'll end up with the government protecting money just as always. That's not what we want.

I would rather have a non-regulatory solution that allows the rest of the industry to simply continue without government intervention. Rather than creating a body that could sterilize the computer industry and make it into just another business as usual economic sector.

There's more at stake here than just Microsoft, it's the whole concept of free software (not merely "Open Source") that we are fighting for. Let's not lose sight of our goals because of hate for one particular company.