Comment Correction (Score 1) 595
You imply that Microsoft had a monopoly in 1995 but doesn't now partly on the basis that people can use Linux and open source software. However, in 1995 Microsoft had a smaller share of the market than it does now. Apple had a much larger market share in 1995 than now and OS/2 was still a (minor) player back then.
So if I understand your argument correctly Microsoft is more of a monopoly now than it was then if you're going by marketshare.
Furthermore, the fact that Linux is a viable competitor is not good from a capitalistic standpoint. Basically the lesson being taught by Linux is that the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give away your stuff for free. And even though Linux gives away its stuff for free it still can barely compete with Microsoft. On the desktop, Linux's marketshare makes Apple's marketshare look great and Apple has a pathetic desktop marketshare. This, to me, is a sign that Microsoft's monopoly is more powerful now than it was in 1995.
(Disclosure: I'm both a Linux and an OS X user.)
So if I understand your argument correctly Microsoft is more of a monopoly now than it was then if you're going by marketshare.
Furthermore, the fact that Linux is a viable competitor is not good from a capitalistic standpoint. Basically the lesson being taught by Linux is that the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give away your stuff for free. And even though Linux gives away its stuff for free it still can barely compete with Microsoft. On the desktop, Linux's marketshare makes Apple's marketshare look great and Apple has a pathetic desktop marketshare. This, to me, is a sign that Microsoft's monopoly is more powerful now than it was in 1995.
(Disclosure: I'm both a Linux and an OS X user.)
