Case: The Sherman Antitrust Act

According to the Department of Justice, Microsoft used its resources and technology to drive other companies out of business, thereby eliminating the competition and creating a monopoly. Without competition, Microsoft was able to set prices and consumer conditions in a way that exceedingly benefited the company while ensuring a decreased amount of new competition because of the proprietary software installed in most PCs. (Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices and Consumer Harm in the Software

- The methodology for selecting and evaluating did not meet government’s goal of demonstrating equal opportunity, was unfairly designed, broke government purchasing rules, did not follow

United States vs. Microsoft is one the largest, most controversial antitrust lawsuits in American history. Many claim the government is wrongly punishing Microsoft for being innovative and successful, arguing that Windows dominates the market because of the product’s popularity, not because of malpractice by the parent company. Others argue in favor of the government, claiming that Microsoft’s practices conflict with the free market ideal. There are many arguments for both sides of the lawsuit, but what the case really comes down to is this: does the government have the right to interfere in today’s marketplace? Or is Microsoft violating laws that are rightfully imposed by the government?

In the opening paragraph of a letter to employees regarding Business Conduct, Steven A Ballimer, Microsoft CEO writes:

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that Whirlpool’s non-compete provision “extends far beyond Whirlpools’s “reasonable competitive business interests.””Whirlpool Corp v. Burns, 457 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2006) Whirlpool did not shown that its claim is enforceable, as it pertains to Burns. Id. The court reasoned this way because there was no evidence that “Burns has disclosed or is likely to disclose any information subject to the confidentiality provision.” Id. Additionally, there is no evidence that the salesman had obtained credible information that would help his employment at Electrolux. Id. Whirlpool had not shown that it faced a real threat of “irreparable harm if not granted injunction.” Id. However Burns could be substantially harmed because he would not be able to find employment using the general knowledge he gained in the past years in home appliances, potentially causing him financial burden. Id. Therefore the court found enforcement of the non-compete covenant unreasonable.

The variances between criminal law and antitrust are criminal law constitutes an offense that is committed by a citizen, and the level of punishment will vary based on the crime. Antitrust on the other hand is a law that controls the actions of a business entity to ensure that the consumers are receiving fair treatment. Both of these statutes have the ability to be tried either at the state or federal level. These laws have an enormous impact on health care in the 21st century as it demonstrates that the government not tolerate misconduct and these laws are in effect to protect the interest of the public. U.S. health care administrators have a duty to oversee the staff and the operation of the facility and is accountable for taking appropriate actions to report any wrongdoing. Administrators are at the forefront of the organization and must monitor the staff and the

The government, for example, contends that some of Microsoft's business agreements with Internet service providers and Internet content providers, which restrict their ability to promote non-Microsoft browsers, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The government also alleges that Microsoft has violated Section 2 by engaging in anti-competitive actions to preserve its Windows monopoly and to extend that monopoly into the browser market (2).

Antitrust as Investopedia pointed out, “prohibits a variety of practices that restrain trade,” ("Antitrust Definition | Investopedia", n.d.). According to the complaints of Microsoft, Google was in violation of the Sherman Act of 1980. The Sherman Act states that, “public is best served by free competition in trade and industry,” ("Sherman Anti-Trust Act legal definition of Sherman Anti-Trust Act", n.d.). Also, the Sherman Act points out that, “it prohibits monopolies attempts to monopolize, or conspiracies to monopolize.” ("Sherman Anti-Trust Act legal definition of Sherman Anti-Trust Act", n.d). By blocking out their rivals, and not giving them an equal opportunity to display the information related to the searches of the consumers, Microsoft felt this was a violation of the Sherman Act. On another note, after reading the research

First, Microsoft ‘encouraged’ Compaq, Apple, and other computer manufacturers to promote only Internet Explorer, and to make that the default browser on their PC. This encouragement came in the way of threats to eliminate or delay licensing of operating systems, providing the browser for free to internet access providers, and bundling the software with the operating system under the guise of interactive ease for the consumer. This manipulation led to an increase in the browser’s sales by 45 to 50%, which paralleled the decline Netscape experienced in their market sales in 1998.6

In return, these companies must give preferential treatment in promotion and the like to Microsoft. One example is AOL's new 4.0 browser is specially designed to work best with the Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 browser. Much of the increase in AOL's clientele base can be attributed to the combined efforts of Microsoft and AOL. Microsoft is not only working with ISP's, but also with companies that build and maintain web pages and servers.

customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows” (“Microsoft: Court’s Findings of Fact”). The barrier of entry would “prevent an aspiring entrant into the relevant market from drawing a significant number of customers away from a

would use their leverage in one market area, such as graphical user interfaces, to gain

Microsoft had to split their operating system company from the rest of their organization. Another action Microsoft took was its relations with Java. They licensed a version of Java that worked mainly with windows where they tried to drive out the competitors and in later years they didn’t even allow Java to work with Windows XP (Rivkin 4). Microsoft tried to basically kill Java and with this the producers of Java sued Microsoft. Last, Microsoft took actions toward their competition in open-source software: Lunix. Microsoft responded by opening up into own server OS code like Lunix did. They actually sold stripped-down versions of the code to emerging economies and they also set up a lab that’s sole purpose was to find competitive weaknesses in the Lunix OS (Rivkin 5).

Microsoft Corporation is a public multinational corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of products and services predominantly related to computing through its various product divisions. Established on April 4, 1975 to develop

The engineers are taking a stab at a program that is made for the advanced web, not one in light of a legitimate concern for enormous organizations. The individuals who favour Firefox over Chrome for its sense of duty regarding a superior web should discover Brave alluring along these lines.