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.
You can call a tail a leg and say a dog has five legs but it still only has four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.
Feel free to bash the quality of Microsoft’s products, I do it all of the time (in addition to being an econ nerd, I’m a computer engineering student). But I also know that they have no monopoly regardless of what some idiot judge thinks. Real monopolies do not last long in a competitive free market, and the computer industry is one of the freest and most unregulated in the world. If a monopoly (or for that matter, a cartel) exists indefinitely in a free market, then it has only done so by providing what consumers want better than any potential competitors. But as I said, most monopolies in a market economy only exist for a very short while before a competitor arrives. As MS already has competitors (Apple, Linux, etc.) on the desktop OS market. The very existence of successful competitors shows that MS is not a monopoly and has not infringed on anybody’s rights in anyway, thus the government should back off.
For a fact-based and historical view on this (rather than the economically illiterate garbage you usually hear in the mainstream and techno media), see this fine article on the equally fine Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Antitrust.html