In none of those cases did the government actually step in and do anything to break up those "monopolies" (other than perhaps an insignificant "slap on the wrist" in Microsoft's case).
So if the government didn't solve those problems, what did? Answer: innovation and competition from other market players.
> Answer: innovation and competition from other market players.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. AMD was on its deathbed a few years ago and Intel still has a near-monopoly on desktop and server CPUs. Google continues to be a monopoly on search and website ads. Microsoft has fallen somewhat, but you could argue that this was only due to pressure from regulators (e.g. browser bundling ban in Europe and when Microsoft was funding Apple to keep the perception of competition alive).
And how exactly are these so-called "near-monopolies" hurting consumers? Last I checked, nobody is forced to use Google for search, and people have a choice between buying Intel or AMD processors.
Just because a company makes better products than other companies, that doesn't make it abusive or detrimental to society (in fact, quite the opposite is true). If Intel's prices were unreasonable, no one would buy their processors and the next best alternative (AMD or otherwise) would steal their market share. Same with Google and Microsoft.
So if the government didn't solve those problems, what did? Answer: innovation and competition from other market players.