The court is wrong. MS does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market. To say otherwise rewrites the long-held definition of a monopoly—TOTAL DOMINATION, 100% market share.
So your opinions are superior to the courts system of the United States of America? LCF, the economic and legal definitions of "monopoly" are not the same. Economically, MS does not have a monopoly... they have a dominant position. Legally, they have been adjudicated to have a monopoly position in the Desktop Operating System Market... and further that they have abused that position.
Standard Oil didn’t have 100% market share when it was broken up.