You might also find 'Embrace, extend, and extinguish' interesting.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Google does this a lot too - and usually, when they do it, everything's Free anyway so nobody cares right away. Chrome has basically ended the development of any competing browsing engine by proposing so many standards extensions that only Google's outsized staff could implement them. WebKit survives purely by mandate of the iOS App Store, and Firefox is basically funded by Google anyway. This is arguably more effective EE&E than Microsoft was able to do with Internet Explorer.
(Side note: the whole Oracle/Google lawsuit is basically Oracle trying to litigate EE&E of Java out of existence. This is part of the reason why I can't fully condemn it. If it's wrong for Microsoft to add new class libraries to their own JVM, then it's also wrong for Google to do the same thing. I'd rather live in a world where we can reimplement proprietary extensions, than one where every Free standard has copyright litigation risk associated with it.)
That's not exclusive, but they pretty much coined the term and made it in a viable business practice to undermine competition in the most dirty way.
No, that predates Microsoft by well over a hundred years in the corporate sphere just in the US. They're not remotely close to being the dirtiest at it historically.
If anyone doesn't understand that, go read the history of Standard Oil, US Steel, GM & Ford, or a dozen other giants that have ruled the US economic landscape at one time or another. Walmart has competed as dirty as anything Microsoft has ever done, the same goes for Amazon, Google and Facebook more recently.