When Microsoft recently supported the Texas attorney general’s antitrust litigation against Google, it easy to point the finger and cry “hypocrite.” After all, when Microsoft was accused of monopoly and the US and European Union pursued anti-trust litigation, Microsoft — like IBM and Intel before it — claimed that its monopoly position was the product of its innovative activity and, for that reason, the spoils of its position were reward for innovating. Monopoly may not be the consumer’s desired outcome, but, so the argument goes, its profits are the prize that induces many to enter the contest.