> The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly.

I guess I'm less convinced of judicial infallibility, but I'll grant you it anyway. Mostly I don't think the important question here is the legal standard (which is of course what the court is interested in) than the question of whether the law is achieving its intent. If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly that should be broken up, the law isn't really reflecting mainstream thought about antitrust -- that market concentration is self-perpetuating and harms consumers.

> If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly

Gates was convicted of giving away Explorer for free. Nobody managed to show that harmed consumers.

Like Rockefeller, Bill Gates was convicted of being rich.

You have an interesting way of rewording court decisions to fit your narrative.

Here's what MSFT was actually taken to trial for:

"monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. "

Not "for Gates being rich." Now, his wealth may have put the spotlight on him, but that doesn't negate the court decision on his actions. I can lament that the only reason I was pulled over was because I drive a red Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that my speeding wasn't illegal.

The entire case hinged on Windows including Explorer for free.

> red Ferrari

Selective enforcement is a real thing, and why the offense written on the ticket is not always the real offense.

Oh I’m not claiming they are infallible, my point is that in a pragmatic sense theirs is the opinion that matters.

Here’s why I think you’re previous comment misses the mark: the court ruling was not about whether the company was monopolistic at the time of divestment (1911), the ruling was against business practices that occurred previously, dating back to 1870. It’s possible those practices were unfairly anti-competitive while also no longer creating a monopoly decades later due to other factors.

SO was never convicted of being a monopoly.

Again, read the actual court decision on the case rather than draw your own conclusion. They were found guilty of unreasonable restriction of trade, which is to say guilty of monopolistic behavior.

"was in restraint of trade and amounted to the creation of an unlawful monopoly."

Monopolistic behavior is not the same as having a monopoly.