You want evidence. Unless you work for the DOJ or are privy to the highest levels of Microsoft's management decisions, I doubt either of us has any real evidence either way. Yeah, you put the burden of proof on me and that's fine. But I'm looking at patterns of behavior, past and present. If I apply the fact that the key decision makers haven't changed substantially and that they've admitted know wrong to any other area of life (e.g., a neighbor who tries to financially ruin another neighbor, is stopped by the courts, but never admits that he did anything wrong or, perhaps, a nasty dog that bit me and still gowls and barks when I walk by), I wouldn't trust those decision makers. Perhaps you are willing to forgive and forget without repentence. I'm not, whether it's Microsoft of Mike Tyson. Clearly, you want to trust Microsoft and clearly I don't, and we aren't going to settle an issue of trust the way you seem to want to. Microsoft lost my trust by their past behavior. I don't trust them. A lot of people don't. Trust works that way. If they want to regain my trust, they have to do more than be good just because the DOJ is watching them. They have to convince me that they've changed.
As for law enforcement being random and unpredictable, that's a much bigger issue than just Microsoft. To a certain degree, I probably agree with you there but that's what we get for letting judges rule the country. If George W. Bush folds and nominates a "moderate", I'm done with him. We need to get judges out of the business of creating laws.
Again, I don't hate Microsoft. I simply don't want to see them using their weight to drive competition out of business. It's not even about market share (below 100%) or how much Bill Gates makes for me. But Macs and the threat of Linux have helped drive Microsoft to make their products better and that's a win for the people who do use Microsoft products. Without competition, that just doesn't happen. And that's why anti-competative behavior bothers me so much.