Had Jobs been threatened with jail time, I wonder how much public backlash there would have been. As blind as we may want justice to be, nobody can overlook the fact that the man was responsible for some really nice gadgets. On top of that, the story is hard to get across to the general public: some stock back-dating and ebook price-fixing with no clear sympathetic victim. In light of that, I can see why the DoJ didn't charge him. They would have risked public opinion demonizing the prosecution and favoring Jobs no matter how guilty he was.
I agree with you, and at the same time I'm a little saddened by this reality. Yes Job was responsible for some really nice gadgets that changed people's lives, but at some point the benefits are outweighed by the opportunity cost of competition that would have possibly led to even better gadgets. To be clear, I don't think we often get to that "point" today, but it is a risk worth asking ourselves as a public.
By the time Apple showed up to any particular gadget segment, that gadget segment had existed for years, and sometimes decades before. iPad? Tablets had been kicking around since the 80's. iPhone? iPod? Smart phones and MP3 players had been around since the late 90's. Mac? Apple II? I think you get my point.
But you're making the point I am. Competition is a GOOD thing. Apple showed up in gadget segments and made them better because they weren't terrorized by existing players to keep out. Again I'm not saying that's the point we were at, but I am saying that just because someone/ some company was great, that's no excuse to allow them to try and stop competition.
