"There are any number of programs that work just fine on Windows. I have 2 or 3 dozen of them installed myself and have tried out hundreds more. Did MS farm out their source code to all of those companies and only say No to Netscape?" No, they didn't. But then again, Ma Bell wasn't out trying to take over the post office either. MS went after any developer who they considered a threat or who's business they wanted. When you force your business out of competition, using unfair business practices instead of letting the consumer decide, you are breaking the rules and you have no competition.
It's one thing to buy out your competition and that happens every day. It's another thing to coerce your competition to sell out or to dump your product on the market. Remember that MS didn't get in trouble until they really went over the line with Netscape. Just a quick recap here, Netscape's browser was vastly superior to the MS browser of the time. Rather than play catch up, MS tried to buy Netscape out. Netscape said no, they wanted to "take our chances" and let the consumer decide which software they wanted.
Microsoft could have just focused on developing a better browser and competing with Netscape, and that would have been fine. Instead, they opted to do two illegal things. First, when Windows95 was being developed they denied access to the codes to Netscape, while openly providing them to companies developing software as a subsidiary of MS or companies that were developing software that MS had no interest in. Second, they developed their IE software and rather than sell it as a seperate application, as was the original plan, they began packaging it in as a part of the Windows software. Dumping product on the market in order to put a competitor out of business is unfair competition.
"Microsoft has been smart in the way Apple never was. They WANTED a myriad of software choices for their users - it's what's kept them in business. The more software choices their customers have, the more likely they are to get Windows OS." You're comparing apples and oranges. The IBMPC platform was what drove the success of Microsoft, and that's what competed with Apple. The reason that the IBM platform succeeded while Apple went under was that IBM licensed out their technology so that many companies could produce their product while Apple did not. So while IBM PCs got cheaper and cheaper, Apple's did not.
Also, I would point out to you that MS has never licensed out their technology. They are the sole proprietor of the operating system that runs about 95% of the world's personal computers, and they share that capability with no one. The only source code data that they allow out is used by programmers to develop software that will be compatible with MS Windows. They'll never license out their core software.
"Ma Bell owned the actual phone lines, precluding competition." That was the problem... the Bell System did not own all of the phone lines. They only had operating control over them, which is why the USG decided they did not have the right to say who could use them and who couldn't. But they did own enough of the lines to be able to cripple anyone who wanted to compete, and when that is the case you can't have competition.
"Microsoft doesn't own your computer. You can have Windows, Apple, Unix, Linux or whatever else for your OS. Since MS has competitors (and ones who actually do well in the marketplace) they are not a monopoly." Geeze Vrai, you're sounding more and more like a Democrat with these stetches of reality! Yes there are other operating systems, but how many of these are certified to work with most business applications? Can you say Zero? Remember that the biggest consumer of computer technology is businesses, and businesses can't afford to gamble on unproven technology... especially now that computers have become such an integral part of most businesses. So the net effect is that MS is really the only proven and cost effective means of adding computer services to your business. And sicne the consumer market follows the business market... the answer is Yes, MS does own your computer.