ers went through earlier studies and reports on both energy drinks and sports drinks, which don't contain any stimulants. They note that energy drinks contain a jumble of ingredients -- including vitamins and herbal extracts -- with possible side effects that aren't always well understood. While there aren't many documented cases of harm directly linked to the beverages, stimulants can disturb the heart's rhythm and may lead to seizures in very rare cases, Benjamin said. Recently, she saw a 15-year-old boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder who came into the hospital with a seizure after having drunk two 24-ounce bottles of Mountain Dew, a soft drink that contains caffeine. The boy was already taking stimulant ADHD medication, and the extra caffeine in principle might have pushed him over the edge, according to Benjamin. "You just never know," she said. "It's definitely a concern." Earlier this year, Pediatrics published another review of the literature on energy drinks. In it, Florida pediatricians described cases of seizures, delusions, heart problems and kidney or liver damage in people who had drunk one or more non-alcoholic energy drinks -- including brands like Red Bull, Spike Shooter and Redline. While they acknowledged that such cases are very rare, and can't be conclusively linked to the drinks, they urged caution, especially in kids with medical conditions (see Reuters story of February 14, 2011). U.S. sales of non-alcoholic energy drinks are expected to hit $9 billion this year, with children and young adults accounting for half the market. Manufacturers claim their products will enhance bothicrosoft was already competing with upstart rivals in the early 1990s when the Justice Department accused it of insisting that all personal computers shipped with its Windows operating system be loaded with its web browser Internet Explorer rather than Netscape's Navigator. A federal judge originally ordered Microsoft to be broken up in June 2000, but an appellate court reversed the decision a year later. The Justice Department ultimately settled with Microsoft. Under a consent decree it was required to end retaliation against computer makers who use non-Microsoft software and comply with other antitrust law. The consent decree was originally slated to run five years but was extended repeatedly. Windows and its Outlook email system remain popular but its Bing search engine and other efforts to move into new markets failed to catch fire. "It (the legal battle) had an inhibiting affect on it (Microsoft)," said Evan Stewart, an antitrust expert at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. "They're not competing effectively with Facebook. They're not competing effectively with (Apple). They're not competing effectively with Google." But Andrew Gavil, a Microsoft watcher who teaches antitrust at Howard University School of Law, argues that Microsoft was spurred to try to illegally crush rivals precisely because it had slipped behind the innovation curve after underestimating the importance of the Internet. "Its strategy for catching up was to use its leverage on desktop to hinder its rivals," said Gavil. Further, Gavil and other antitrust experts argue that a weak consent decree did little to curtail Microsoft. "The most obvious bad behavior was stopped. It didn't restore lost competition. It didn't do anything to revive the competitors that had been hobbled," he said. Despite Microsoft's efforts to paint Google as the next logical target for regulators, Bert Foer, head of the American Antitrust Institute think tank, and others argue that no one company today stands out today like Microsoft stood out as an antitrust violator. Microsoft has publicly called into question the fairness