So from a sales perspective, Canon is doing quite well against Sony/Olympus/Panasonic despite it's very limited investment in the mirrorless arena - which sort of suggests that if they did decide to invest in the MILC market in a significant way, they would kick Sony/Olympus/Panasonic in the groin, at least from a sales perspective.
Here's what I'll find really interesting; Canon, at least a year or two ago, seemed to come from the approach that video was the wave of the future. Thus all the video AF features on their XXXD cameras, their focus on their cine lines, etc.
Now, I've used both mirrorless and DLSR, and it's very, very obvious that mirrorless is the future for video applications. Thus why things like the GH2/GH3 have been very popular; it allows you to cut out weight, use basically any lens, etc. For consumers, they basically become cameras the size of the Vixia's, but with a larger sensor and better lens options. For hobbyists and pros, you can save a lot of money on crew and gear with how much lighter they are.
Makes me wonder why Canon hasn't really toyed around with their own version of a GH3. From a video perspective, they wouldn't be cannibalizing their 5dIII sales; people buy those for the full-frame sensor and RAW video hack. And they wouldnt be hurting their C-line stuff, cause you rent/buy that for reliability and workflow. Even if they overprice it, people might buy it for Canon compatibility.
You'd think Canon would want to crush the Sony photography line; cause if they can end them, they end a lot of their other competitors who rely on those sensors.