One specific example brought up was the anti-trust action against Microsoft. If one thinks about the big picture, then the basis of the action was that Microsoft didn't benefit its customers enough. Part of the claim is that OEMs were harmed by Microsoft's purchasing agreemens. Yes, people like Michael Dell who became a billionare are the tragic victims of Microsoft's strategy. As for the citizenry, unless one takes the point of view that they're all completely stupid and / or delusional, the fact that they continue to buy Microsoft products indicates that they think the software makes them better off (I will admit that many liberals (not A.L.) believe exactly this).
Now, it's probably true that with hindsight we might have been able to change Microsoft's behaviour to create perfection, instead of Microsoft being simply good overall. But that suffers from two flaws. One, it's the past and says little about what could be done now. Second, it attacks the good in pursuit of the best, which is not a strategy that works in the real world. What is missing is not the bad things done by Microsoft, but an accounting of the costs of stopping those things. One need merely tote up the hit to pension funds from the drop in stock value to get one cost that probably outweighs everything else. To me the biggest cost was teaching the high tech industry that it has to pay off K street in order to function. Why smart people like A.L. aid and abet that kind of extortion is incomprehensible to me.