I'm dubious that combining a well-designed stabilized lens with an "anti-shake" body would be an improvement, and might well degrade the image, as the two feedback systems might fight each other, or alternatively reinforce each other and produce some interesting explosive (overcompensated0 dynamics.
The link provided appears to answer one question speculated about in this thread.
"Image blur caused by camera shake generally occurs with shutter speeds slower than 1/[focal length] in 35mm format equivalent."
Two independant open loop anti-shake systems can compete with each other, giving variable results (from better to worse than either single system) depending on many external inputs (frequencies of vibrations, amplitudes, directions, etc.)
Another thought about tripods. As was mentioned earlier, the inertia of the camera system can be easily modified, perhaps by adding weight, or putting the camera on a tripod. Even holding the camera more or less firmly will change the inertia. Because the anti-shake systems provide no feedback about relating anti-shake out put to input (actual shake), how does the camera's algorhythm change? Someone mentioned Canon's lenses do this by detecting the system is attached to a tripod. But it has no way of knowing how good the tripod is, or how firmly the camera is being held. It seems only feedback between the sensor (just how stabilized is the image) and the anti-shake system will solve the problem, not another added on antis-shake system.
It does seem possible to apply different programs in the computer for multiple systems, but that is just a band-aide.
Again, this is just my opinion.