Put another way, ask yourself the last time MicroSoft pushed for an Open Standard for ANYTHING. Pushing for open standards doesn't define whether you are a monopolist or not. I know of no companies or individuals who try to help their competitors.
A true monopoly, which is the very rarest of things (absent government, or other force), leaves no options or alternatives. Microsoft doesn't qualify. Not to mention that the main thing that got them in trouble with government regulators (under Bill Clinton's direction) was giving things away for free.
Do you think a monopoly means only one company has control over the means of production? While that is A definition, it is not the ONLY definition. Nor is it the one I was using.
True, most companies do not try and help competitors, however, the growth of the Internet is controlled by the
IETF.
Believe it or not, this is how most of the 'big' companies decide how things out to be done.
As to MicroSoft getting in trouble for 'giving things away for free', what got them in trouble was two things, using their position as OS leader to push Netscape off of the desktop (using coercion against OEMs) and changing Java in spite of licensing that said that they wouldn't.
The former is abuse of position (denying the OEM the right to install what it would like -- imagine Good Year saying you can't have a Blaupunkt stereo in your car). The second case was a clear license violation.
And if you think that MicroSoft is just doing what any business would do, then you're little better than the idiots on the other side who feel that perjury is okay because 'everybody does it.'
Just wait until it's your business getting screwed and then your tune will change. Kodak just found out. Others (Adobe) will too.
"All things in balance. Liberty above All." -- Me.