A monopoly is based on share of the market not based on theoretical choice. You are making precisely the argument the sugar companies lost with: theoretical choice for consumers was fine their actual choice didn't matter. A monopoly is defined in terms of the actual choices consumers make, competitors are viable only if they actual sell.
In terms of global search worse numbers are Google 90% with Bing, yahoo and other at 3% each. That would be a monopoly. If you count differently (customers and not search volume) then the market looks more diverse or count certain Asian providers that aren't tied to the advertising industry then the market does look more diverse. But clearly Google is still dominant enough, even with those counts that undermining Google is enhancing not diminishing competition.
, I really want to know what you call companies like Microsoft regarding desktop operating systems - or the phone company - or patents/copyrights for that matter.
Microsoft was a monopoly as well, even though there were dozens of other desktop operating systems available. They made the same argument you did citing Amiga OS, MacOS, the BSD, AIX, IRIX Didn't work. They were found to be a monopoly that had abused their position.
As for the phone company, I assume you mean in the 1950s-1970s. And they were a regulated utility who agreed they were a monopoly and subject to strong constraints on price to act in the public interests.
Grounds for voiding a patent would be that it establishes a monopoly. As for copyright I don't see the connection.