you aren't up on enough of your history.
Back to the topic of the OP ... if you take a look, my history of posts in this thread addresses, for the most part (other than our little aside here) address the issue of dealing with Windows and no hint of *nix advocacy. In my opinion, I believe I contributed a couple of valuable gems to the thread in the are of rejuvenating Windoze on a 4 year old laptop into something which should still server the needs of someone doing writing for a living, others may disagree.
If you want to pursue our diversion further, please, read on.
On the surface, your comments sound correct, but they lack a true understanding of the context. For example, you snippet of Microsoft paying $50K for CP/M (apologies for the missing slash previously, sleep and I have been strangers much of the past few days) ... yes, they did pay for CP/M at one point, but only after first inking a deal with IBM to sell a product to which they had absolutely no rights and was completely and utterly the property of someone else.. Some might call that brilliant marketing, but usually that is called theft and fraud and violates the "good faith" premise which used to be inherent to every legal contract in this country. According to Microsoft's tactics and your apparent agreement with them, I could go out, hawk your house on the market, complete a contracted sale and accept payment for said property and then go to you to arrange to purchase it using the funds I got from first selling it. Now, you just TRY to slip that one past your local courts, bank and county clerk. I dare you. But according to the Microsoft way of doing things, that is just smart business.
It has been many years, and the impact of health and age on my memory has not been kind, but in the incident to which I was specifically referring (albeit very poorly) the plaintiff suing Microsoft for copyright violation/piracy, used a machine provided by M$ to the court with the contested OS product pre- installed and with a few commands in full view of the court got the machine to display the company logo of the plaintiff which was embedded in the code and which Microsoft hadn't even bothered to remove from the product being sold as Microsoft's creation, clearly showing their authorship of what Microsoft was selling as their own. Microsoft lost that one.
By the way, did you look up the legal battle over Microsoft's Doublespace product, their resulting release of Drivespace, and the legal battle with Stac? That is a factual event and well documented in the "real" published news agencies and publications. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find it on findlaw.com. Here is a brief glimpse from - dare I suggest it - an actual print publication of the day - when journalism was far more responsible and accountable than today. (I subscribed to both Infoworld and ComputerWorld along with several others back in the day) http://books.google.com/books?id=x_1p1FQCWXkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=stac+sues+microsoft&source=bl&ots=HapmWpovvN&sig=FDHHuWd9lLOxr2GHcCpERt8XCeY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oBY0UJyOD4Oy9gSY0oCQDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stac%20sues%20microsoft&f=false
Interesting eh? Microsoft stole Stac Electronics code in Stacker to create Doublespace, a "free" drive compression utility Microsoft added to Dos 6.x. Stac, of course, depended upon sales of Stacker for their survival. Microsoft has a long standing practice of doing such things: deliberately giving away product in order to drive competition into ruin, and then turning around and charging a fortune for the product that now has no competitors. Look back at history at how much Microsoft Office sold for back in the day of Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, etc. Microsoft just about gave Office away in order to capture market, then, once the competition was no longer viable and they had trained the current generation of users to the Microsoft way despite the very real superiority of the previous competitors, they increased the price nearly ten fold. Up through the early 2000's, Microsoft products and units were profitable in but two business areas: their OS division and their Office division, where they held monopoly (the OS proven as such in court,) and the Office product by dint of having driven the competition into bankruptcy using the earnings from the first monopoly). Every other unit operated at a LOSS as Microsoft used the ill-gotten position of their OS and Office suite to finance their attempts to take over other industries/market areas. Check the history and see just how long MSN ran at a loss and how much money they lost before they ever even came close to breaking even. Such an endeavor would have been discarded by just about any other business entity in the world as an unacceptable loss, one which cost so much to the company, most entities would have failed altogether.
Back to OS/2, your comments lack the contextual focus of the period I specifically address: the post collaboration era - the 32 bit era of OS/2 2.1 and beyond. You are reading a Wiki without understanding it. I LIVED and worked with both products at the time and was extremely aware of what was going on, following many of the legal battles as close as possible short of actually having access to and using a law library. Thus a certain passion on the subject.
Wiki summaries, wiki articles are NOT the full history, far from it. They are but brief vignettes, often with errors. I gather from your cites and strict adherence to their extremely limited presentation of history, that you are one of those who holds that if its on the internet, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... Perhaps you should consider that for the issues of which I am speaking, the internet, as we think of it today, didn't exist and isn't your best resource. Rather than assuming that the brief summaries you find in a Wiki encapsulating years of events, perhaps you should actually consult some of the news/technical publications from the period. Personally, I was reading the consumer and technical journals being published at the time covering these events as they happened. (PC Magzaine, the Dobbs Journal, PC World, OS/2 Magazine and a number of others.) From all you have presented here, it is likely I was doing so before you were engaging in critical thought.