In the editorial "The Tale of Macbeth = The Tale of Squaresoft???", there is a lot of inaccurate information. I will respond to what is written by writing my replies in the number corresponding to the number in his editorial.
1. Dragon Warrior/Quest was really the foundation of RPG games as opposed to FF1. Final Fantasy 1 was made to be more or less a copy of Dragon Quest. Not a big deal or anything, but it is worth mentioning that Dragon Quest was the game that started the RPG craze, not Final Fantasy.
6. Square never signed a contract that said they would exclusively make games for Sony. Square just went with the Playstation over other systems for various reasons. There was nothing contractual that prevented Square for developing for other platforms as was inferred by what was written in the original editorial.
7. Square didn't merge persay with Square EA. Square and EA worked out a distrubution deal where EA would distribute Square products to get better distribution. The companies are not really one in the same like they would be if it were a merger.
8. Final Fantasy 7 was released BEFORE the Square/EA deal happened. It was Sony Computer Entertainment America who published Final Fantasy 7 in the US for PSX, not Square EA. The timeline is off significantly. SCEA also published the following Square games in the US: Final Fantasy Tactics, Tobal no. 1, Saga Frontier, and Einhader.
Anyway, this isn't a very long reply or even a counterpoint, really. I am just pointing out a few flaws that were in the original editorial. There are also a few Square games that were left out of your timeline, like Mario RPG for SNES (which Square developed and Nintendo published) that I would have added to the timeline.