Wikipedia isn't the only source available for this case, neither is it the most reliable one. You are focusing too much on the term monopoly. Had Apple won that case; competition would have undoubtedly declined. This loss of competition would without doubt have had a major impact on Apple's market share. Assuming Apple had won the case; once the copyrights would have expired Apple would have continued to retain its dominance in the GUI market & it would take considerable time for competition to come up with something half as good as Apple offerings. I have also read that the court felt that Apple wanted to keep the GUI to itself & restrict competition.
It is beyond the courts jurisdiction to worry about monopoly. That is department of commerce/justice territory.
The primary reasons Apple lost the case were already presented by me in post
#73.
When exactly did I deny HP's involvement in the trial? Didn't I state in post #73 that the courts decided that the concept of the GUI was not copyrightable because Microsoft Windows wasn't virtually identical to Mac OS? The rest of the information you posted in the above quoted paragraph is clearly from Wikipedia based on what I read on the Wikipedia page over
here. There are other sources you should refer to for information. It is a well known fact that one of the reasons behind Apple filing a lawsuit for protecting the GUI was to simply destroy competition.
The primary reason behind apple filing the lawsuit was that "windows" was blatant ripoff of the xerox/Apple work. apple didn't have a way to protect it back then. Now they do
Here is an interesting article published some time back.
**********
Thom Holwerda
30th Aug 2012
We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Digital Research, Inc. is a hallowed name in the industry. The company was founded by Dr. Gary Kildall to sell and further develop his CP/M operating system. In the first half of the '80s, DRI developed an implementation of the ISO standard Graphical Kernel System, a low-level system for 2D vector graphics, called Graphics System Extension. GSX eventually formed the basis for GEM.
GEM, or Graphical Environment Manager, was to serve as DRI's graphical user interface on top of CP/M and later DR-DOS and other versions of DOS. GEM's star shone particularly bright as the user interface for the Atari ST, a computer that competed with the Amiga, the original Macintosh, and earlier versions of Windows.
Apple wasn't happy with having to deal with competition, so the company started to sue everyone it thought it could get away with. We all know the lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, which Apple eventually lost because Microsoft had actually licensed much of the GUI technology from Apple - Cupertino claimed this only covered Windows 1.0, but the courts disagreed. Ten elements were not covered by Microsoft's license, but the courts ruled that these were not worthy of protection.
Interestingly enough, Apple didn't just sue Microsoft over look and feel - two other companies were sued as well: Hewlett-Packard and Digital Research. The suit against HP was about NewWave, an object-oriented desktop system that ran on top of Windows. This lawsuit was part of Apple vs. Microsoft, and Apple lost it as well. The lawsuit against DRI, however, never fully materialised, because DRI wasn't looking for a prolonged legal battle, and as such, decided to make several alterations to GEM/1.
This resulted in GEM/2. The trash icon was altered, the desktop was replaced by two permanently open, fixed file manager windows, scrollbar blobs were made narrower, and animations were removed from the system. The goal was to please Apple into not suing the heck out of DRI, and this strategy eventually succeeded. A few small cosmetic changes, and GEM continued to exist in several forms for years and years to come.
The cool thing is that GEM had several advantages over the Macintosh, and two of those are pretty damn huge: GEM supported colour interfaces, and, more importantly, it could multitask. In other words, it had two high-profile features the Macintosh didn't offer, much like Windows 2.0 and NewWave.
However, that's not the common thread between Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft, HP, and DRI.
You may wonder why Apple never sued Commodore for the Amiga, which also sported a graphical user interface containing several of the elements Apple claimed ownership over. It's actually quite simple: unlike AmigaOS and its Workbench, Windows, NewWave, and GEM all ran on DOS... And more importantly, on IBM-compatible PCs. Considering IBM was Apple's biggest competitor, the company was adamant in ensuring the graphical user interface did not find its way to IBM-compatible machines.
That's why the argument about copying/stealing/whatever is laughed away by those of us with an understanding of history. Apple sued Microsoft, DRI, and HP not because they felt wronged, but because they were afraid of the competition that would result from these companies bringing credible user interfaces to IBM-compatible hardware. Since the Amiga was a separate and unique hardware platform, Apple knew Commodore would not be able to compete in the long term, so it didn't bother to sue Commodore. Apple's fears became reality - the Amiga withered away into irrelevance and the IBM PC took over the industry - and it nearly killed Apple.
You can easily draw a parallel to today. Apple didn't sue over WebOS or Bada (which looks virtually identical to TouchWiz, I might add); they sued Android, because it's basically today's IBM-compatible platform. You'll also note that the focus of Apple's legal actions used to be HTC, but when Samsung rose to prominence in the Android space, the South-Korean company became the focus instead. Anyone even only slightly versed in pattern recognition can see the obvious.
You know what the irony is of all this? One of the main developers behind GEM was Lee Jay Lorenzen, and get this: before joining DRI, he worked at Xerox PARC on the very same user interfaces upon which the Macintosh was built. In other words, Apple took what was partially his work, implemented it for the Macintosh, and then sued over Lorenzen's own post-Xerox interface!
The irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.
**********
Everyone knows that the reason Microsoft Windows became popular is due to deals Microsoft made with original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of bundling Windows with their hardware. Besides that Microsoft Windows could be legally installed on any IBM compatible or Intel PC, clearly it was Microsoft's business model combined with a bunch of anti-competitive practices that resulted in them receiving a dominant market share. Apple's business model combines the hardware with the software, this results in a premium product & a slightly enclosed ecosystem that some customers do not wish to be a part off. This is why people always tend to complain about Apple limiting freedom.
Apple probably does make deals with suppliers for the purpose of exclusively supplying them. However, that does not mean that the competition isn't free to search for other suppliers that may provide them with the raw materials to produce a unibody aluminium laptop.
Apple was also granted patents for the design of the unibody Macbook Pro. Could that be why Ultrabooks with Microsoft Windows are late to the market?
Apple Granted Design Patents for Unibody MacBook Pro/Air, Glass Trackpad
It is worse than that. They developed and patented the aluminum machining process and told the suppliers no one else gets it for 3 years. Becos of that the Macbook airs are are still within 10-20% of the equivalent "ultrabooks"
The article quoted above clearly explains why competitors still hesitate from blatantly copying Apple's designs. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason Samsung's Android phones are the target of these latest lawsuits is because they present the greatest threat to the iPhone at the moment.
by the way Iphone looks more like a Samsung products cz major components in Iphone are by samsung and retina disply by LG a korean company 
APPLE IS THE BIGGEST CHEATER ON EARTH STEALING OTHER'S **** AND BURYING THEM IN MONEY AND PAPERWORK 
