Amazing that the book was written by a man who failed to communicate that (rather obvious) idea to the employees of the multi-billion dollar company he owned and directly managed.
If anything, Gates the futurist vs Gates the businessperson shows us that, regardless of what the pro-lassiez faire types say, most often corporations left unfettered don't product the best results, but only results that directly benefit themselves and that often translates into things like vendor lock-in, poor software, poor support, lack of progress.
I mean, does Gates even question why the market for the things he complains about are so inefficient? Its because its full of guys like himself.
This isn't just semantics. An unfettered corporation no longer has the benefits of government either. I'm thinking of things like subsidies, added regulation that raises barriers of entry and limited liability.
> regardless of what the pro-lassiez faire types say
Not all pro laissez-faire types are strict utilitarians. Most that I know tend to appeal to ethics in addition to a freed market's utility.
> but only results that directly benefit themselves
That doesn't make any sense. Microsoft has surely provided benefits to a great number of people. Perhaps you'd argue that Microsoft benefited more in certain transactions, but that's an entirely different claim (and it doesn't imply that others didn't benefit at all).
Utilitarianism is actually an normative moral theory concerned with determining whether an action is right or wrong. Any strict utilitarian would dispute that ethics are in addition to their view rather than a core component :)