It's in the sentence you quote. Windows.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly in your own product. Hopefully I don't have to explain why.
They were convicted of abusing monopoly power in the OS/Browser/Office arena a while back, in case you might've missed that trial.
No, I didn't. Which is why I know what market they were actually found to be a monopoly in: x86-compatible PC OSes. Not office. Not browsers. Certainly not something as generic as "all operating systems"
Surely you agree Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market.
Which OS market ? There's more than one.
The reason this is an abuse is quite simple. They are requiring ARM based tablets that have Windows 8 certification (take whatever you want from the intended meaning of that phrase) to require a non-user accessible key to certify or "sign" binaries on the ARM platform. Granted, Surface is Microsoft's product, but this will (and it has been WELL documented) apply to ALL ARM processor based tablets, even from third parties. (Want to play in Windows 8 Land? You're going to have to pay the gatekeeper, Microsoft, and not give users the SecureBoot Keys.
So you're arguing there won't be any ARM based tablets on the market soon capable of running anything except Windows 8 ? To be clear, you're predicting the death of Android on ARM tablets ?
All you have to do is look at the history of Microsoft to see that anything they do is geared towards not making a better product than their competitors, but defeating utterly their competitors and leaving them unable to continue.
Actually it's a struggle to think of any significant Microsoft product that hasn't won out by being more attractive to customers than the alternatives.
The problem that Microsoft's been facing for decades now is the fact that Linux is free. You can't under-price free, and you can't, in the current Intel architecture, make a suitable "Windows only" system anymore. (There are exceptions, and some driver support sucks, but for the most part, it's not like it was in the heyday of Microsoft's OS hot war against everyone else.)
It is stupidly trivial for Microsoft to create a standard for "Windows only" systems. It is trivial today, it was trivial ten years ago, it was trivial ten years before that. They didn't.
Linux has been free forever. Strangely, it hasn't displaced Windows. It hasn't even displaced MacOS. Indeed, the result has been the complete opposite. Clearly "free" means diddly squat to customers.
So forgive us for not believing Microsoft doesn't have a sinister plot in mind with this secureBoot code signing fungasm of theirs. History has proven that they are not to be trusted.... ever.
The only thing missing from your paranoid rant is the ridiculous "DOS ain't done" line.