>
What I was trying to say was MS didn't fit the textbook definition of a monopoly.
<

The gist of your assertion was that MS did not have Monopoly power - and as a result - was not guilty of abusing its monopoly power. The flaw in this argument is that the conclusion relies on a premise that is invalid. Specifically, MS does have monopoly power. Whether it fits a textbook definition of what a monopoly is irrelevant...

<
I wasn't saying they didn't enjoy a competitive advantage over other software vendors. Competitive advantage does not constitute a monopoly.
>

No, but again, this issue is not about a company having a competitive advantage. The issue is about whether a company has abused its power by engaging in anti-comptetitive practices...

>
Its hard to say if consumers would be better off with more competition because MS products are widely available and competively priced. That fact is not characteristic of a monopoly.
>

The more competition there is, the better off consumers will be. Folks confuse competition with a lack of standards. As long as a common framework/guidelines exist, the more folks that are in the market place to innovate new products - the better off the consumer will be. Why folks think one has to come at the expense of the other is beyond me...

Choice - Good
Lack of Choice - Bad