And My Space wasn't a monopoly, there was a parade of social networking sites of various popularity and success starting with bolt in the late 90s and most directly before MySpace was Friendster.

Compare these applications, to say power companies, or ISPs in much of the US. The difference is really clear.

No, it didn't.

The remedy (not the finding of monopoly and abuse of that monopoly) got sent back by a higher court for new proceedings, and then due to a change in Administration to one friendlier to (and, coincidentally, heavily supported by) Microsoft, the government stopped seeking breakup as a remedy while the new proceedings were pending, and a far weaker remedy was mutually negotiated as a settlement.

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[24] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case"

> Firstly Microsoft monopoly got thrown out because of unethical behavior of the judge (which is why there isn't two Microsoft entities today. The whole thing hinged on "Microsoft installed its browser by default which gave it an unfair advantage." To allow the DOJ to save face, Microsoft agreed to make it easier to install other browsers.

Nothing was 'thrown out', rather the penalty was changed after the higher court issued a ruling that actually changed the liability implications for MS, which allowed MS to negotiate a lesser judgement. Findings of fact and the ruling were not overthrown, despite questions about judge Jackson's impartiality.

Beyond that, the US was not the only jurisdiction in which Microsoft was taken to court and found guilty of monopolistic practices. "DOJ" is meaningless in courts outside the US, so your statement doesn't even make logical sense as a component of your argument.

Second - you seem to be standing behind a single dictionary definition for what constitutes a monopoly. That's fine when discussing certain technicalities in abstraction, but completely ignores the fact that the dictionary definition is meaningless in terms of law. A monopoly can absolutely exist even in the presence of competitive options, and that is very clearly laid out in many ways in various laws and legal precedents. The Sherman Act* alone has very clear statements about this, and absolutely contradicts what you are saying. Monopolistic behavior is about controlling the market and/or using market/industry dominance to prevent or stifle competition. It is not about the sheer absence of competition.

* https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...