On October 16 of this year, M$ dropped its appeal in South Korea Antitrust case. Yesterday, M$ yielded in its fight against European regulator, particularly this one woman who eventually paid for M$ CEO Steve Ballmer dinner in a restaurant in Rotterdam. And, by the way, M$ general counsel Brad Smith has called called Ballmer's decision to end the fight 'a disappointing one for M$.' Do you honestly feel M$ monopoly is finally broken? i_Xp/VistaUser

Well I don't know, what's their market share?

I think it's too soon to gauge the actual impact but according to this news article American industry analysts were skeptical that Microsoft's concession would have a big impact in the marketplace. i_Xp/VistaUser

After fighting the European Commission for 9 years with all their firepower, all M$ has to say in waving the white flag was the following statement: At the time the Court of First Instance issued its judgment in September, Microsoft committed to taking any further steps necessary to achieve full compliance with the Commission’s decision. We have undertaken a constructive discussion with the Commission and have now agreed on those additional steps. We will not appeal the CFI’s decision to the European Court of Justice and will continue to work closely with the Commission and the industry to ensure a flourishing and competitive environment for information technology in Europe and around the world. The bottom line is that M$ has already paid nearly 1 billion euros ($1.43 billion at current exchange rates) in fines while fighting EU to retain its software monopoly. Now M$ stands to fork out alot more in fines yet levied - all for what? i_Xp/VistaUser

Monopolies are seldom totally benign... and M$ in its life-time has to some extent demonstrated that - but... Disregarding the complexities of the two principal/competing systems, and although no great phan of M$ and its marketing strategies etc., it is fair to say that M$ has done a lot to make computing very much more available, and overall very useable. That they did force-feed the public with "the M$ way" of things is no great credit to them; but it has worked to the benefit of many an end-user with limited techical/IT know-how etc.? Competition is often a stimulus and source of growth, and M$ dominance (some might say less than above board practices...) may have restricted other viable options? Linux comes to mind... Apple might have had a similar dominance had "they" not chosen to over-protect their products etc. Had this been the case it is not inconceivable that they might have gone a simlar path to M$ in terms of force-feeding etc...? One only has to remember the withdrawl of the legal clone versions of Apple computers a few years back; they sold well and Apple withdrew the license to manufacture/sell them... Which having sed... I think there will be some effect on M$-strategies anon, but overall I doubt they will really suffer too much. Possibly events may conspire to encourage the two systems (Apple/M$) to co-operate more fully; and also other software producers to do likewise? It would be in their (and end-users')interest overall to do so? Possibly Linux, with its slow but apparently continuing growth, will become a greater stimulus to M$ (and Apple too?) to change their respective ways too? Inevitably the final driving force for M$ and the others will (as now) be the bottom-line of the balance sheet. If it's worth it to them they will change their respective ways; if it's not likely they will not change - or at best make a few cosmetic changes and no more than that? To end on a positive note: it's also fair to remember the Gates Foundation and its very significant charitable enterprises these days. M$ ain't all bad...