The level of hate of Microsoft amazes me. For many years there have been alternatives to Microsoft products. Because of that the basis for monopoly charges were misapplied. Monopolies are widely understood to mean that a single company controls commodity sales to many. Well by that definition then the charges were false. If a graphical user interface is considered then the charges are still false because of the existence of Apple and OS/2.

I am not sure where the hatred for Microsoft began, but it is certainly hatred. Currently the major rivals include Windows, Linux and Apple and others. Hardcore Linux users seem to have a guttural hatred for Microsoft. Perhaps it involves a group that simply dislikes leaders and Microsoft is currently in the lead.

Regardless, it is widely agreed that Microsoft produces good products and proof of that are the sales figures. That is not to say that there are not any technically superior products, but what produces high sales figures includes many things other than technical superiority. An unbiased look at the contest for sales of Beta and VHS consumer video reveals that. The Beta format is technically superior to VHS, but VHS was more widely accepted.

The personal computer industry is very competitive and corporate survival requires aggressive marketing. Few people would dispute that Microsoft is aggressive. But, that alone does not mean that Microsoft is guilty of being a monopoly. If Microsoft did not understand computer users and the technology of personal computers and balance the two well then sales would drop dramatically and the void would be filled very quickly.

In my opinion Microsoft may be guilty of many things, but being a monopoly is not one of them.