The problem is not that they have a monopoly on mobile (having a monopoly is not illegal), but that they are using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert pressure on competitors in another market (via the FAT "requirement" - because if you don't use FAT your gizmo won't work with 90%+ of the computers sold). This can be interpreted as abusing a monopoly.
Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth because of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly.
This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.
Not defending the patent for FAT - nobody prohibits device OEMs shipping a piece of software that manages data on the device without requiring the FAT to be present.
Those devices will offer a more complicated experience because they have to do something Microsoft doesn't have to because they have the desktop OS monopoly creating a competitive burden to everyone else. Looks like leveraging a monopoly on one market to gain advantages on another to me, even if it is a subtle way.
All they have to do to leverage their desktop-related monopolies is to sit tight and do nothing. And that's why it's really bad.
It worked out for Apple/iTunes just fine. I don't like this approach (and do not buy i-devices for that reason), but it is quite viable if executed right.
Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth because of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly.
This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.