Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Microsoft interoperability. (note: Rather long post)

Microsoft interoperability. (note: Rather long post)

I've always found the whole "interoperability" thing a little confusing. Why should Microsoft care whether Linux can inter operate with Windows? Shouldn't their main concern be Windows and their profits?
On the other hand, without interoperability oversight, Microsoft would likely gouge the customers for everything they can get legally and then some just because. But then, isn't that what competition is for? If Microsoft abuses their customers, the should simply get up and move en masse to a competitor. But if they can't move their data to the competitors, then interoperability is needed.
So, I can understand why government step in and mandate interoperability, but why should there need to be alternatives in the first place? If Microsoft allowed all their competitors to die, then people would be robbed of choice and have to take whatever is offered (circling back to the gouging mentioned earlier.) But then again, is it Microsoft that should support these competitors or the consumers/governments that want to have choice?
Which brings me to another point, what's the point of having a choice if you never exercise it? For years, people had the choice of Windows and Macs, but they chose Windows. I know Microsoft had their deal with OEMs, but Apple could have made the same deal ( I think they did towards the Second Coming of Steve Jobs, but I'm not sure so I'll leave it out of the argument). Interoperabilty gives people choice between one product and another, Microsoft versus Linux/MAC but if they don't excercise those rights and actually use the tools that this has made possible (eg. OpenOffice.org) then why should Microsoft be forced to still provide all these tools to people?

Finally, I still don't get why Microsoft should care one bit about the failure of their competitors. I know that the monopoly law in Europe has some clause about how the monopoly company must do everything in its power to ensure that it has a valid competitor in the field. But, if its not in the best interests of the shareholders, should the governments still force them to make such decisions? It feels like it should be the government that props up these companies rather than punishing the monopoly company simply for doing well (as long as they didn't gain that monopoly through shenanigans). After all, if new laws cannibalize their profits enough, the shareholders will simply walk away from the company and leave their employees without jobs.

So this is what a train of thought looks like. I wonder if anyone would be interested in arguing it?