Quote: "They think they have a monopoly. To me as long as there are equivalent alternatives to the software there can't be a monopoly. And even though there are certain media technologies protected by microsoft there are other equivalent technologies that can be used for other OS's."
You have to consider market inertia as well. Ninetyfive percent of all PCs are sold with Windows in the home market. Ninetyfive percent of those PCs will never see Linux on the HD because most people just want a computer to write letters, play games on, or surf the web with. These users have a limited requirement list for their machines. Windows does perform the things on that list, so why should a common PC user change it if he/she doesn't have to?
It doesn't matter that there's alternatives. Those alternatives are in reality, or are perceived to be, for dedicated computer users. As long as things are like that, Windows is in an overwhelmingly dominating position. They have a near-monopoly on the PC market.
This also means that Microsoft has a huge advantage when a user wants to update old OS:es. Instead of looking for alternative OS:es when an OS gets outdated they go with new versions of Windows. Ie Microsofts size and domination makes it the only real alternative for most users.
A situation like that isn't good for anyone. Not the market, not the users, not Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft makes a lot of money, but any monopoly or near monopoly starts to feed on itself in the end. So, go EU.
-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----