The federal appeals court wrote:

"...we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."

"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."

"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."

"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."

"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."