Let's see some more cola hypocrisy 1837

Oh, Ralph, you need to get a better understanding of the system. Microsoft was found to have a 100% legal monopoly. The correct term was "monopoly market power" and referred solely to their dominance of the narrowly defined "Intel processor or compatible desktop operating system software" market. They are free to do anything they choose in servers, game consoles, flight simulation software, office automation software, language support, and the like except require that such things be purchased in strict conjunction with Windows desktop platform software. That would be leveraging of a monopoly power.

The key is that it is a legally obtained monopoly and not subject to any breakup.

You should read the gouge published by the DOJ, Ralph! The anbreastrust laws exist to protect consumers, not compebreastors. The notion that compebreastors need to be protected derives solely from an anticipation that consumers are harmed by an absence of compebreastion. However, that has to be shown and in the DOJ case, it was not shown very well. For example, Jackson dismissed the exclusive dealing charges that were brought to show how Microsoft had damaged Netscape's business through requiring OEMs to install IE if they wanted Windows. Since there were many other routes to market for Netscape other than the OEM distribution, the charge was found to be false. Jackson did find that Microsoft had a "per se" violation of the tying rules, but that was thrown out on appeal.

I think that the hypocritical part comes from your deep set hate for Microsoft. You favor anything that damages MS and dislike anything that helps MS. But you are just a typical cola nut in that regard and do not really stand out.