Microsoft Antitrust Case

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 Justice Department maintains that the most critical concern involved Microsoft’s agreement to license a code to other companies, which allows rival products to communicate with Windows software. As of January 17, 2004, only eleven companies have chosen to license this code, most of which are not much competition for Microsoft. In addition, many companies are accusing Microsoft of demanding unreasonable fees and tedious restrictions for the code license (Krim, 2004).

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?

The war between Microsoft and the Department of Justice actually began with the rollout of Windows 95. In an attempt to gain a greater market share of the Internet browser arena, Microsoft began packaging Internet Explorer as part of their Windows operating system. Microsoft required their original equipment manufacturing (OEM) companies to install Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Networking software on every personal computer they sold along with icons for each application prominently displayed on the user's desktop.

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).

to compete, so it opted to try to form a monopolistic trust in order to eliminate the competition. But to determine if Microsoft was attempting to violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a trust must be defined. By definition, a trust is a combination of firms formed by legal agreement. While it may not be obvious to the average consumer, Microsoft, by trying to negotiate an agreement between the two businesses so it could have a better grip on web browsing, hints at wanting to form a trust between the two. Not many people had non-Windows systems so Microsoft would have the Netscape browser be offered to the minority of customers while making itself available to the masses. Microsoft would not directly gain money from Netscape, but its losing potential customers meant that Microsoft would gain more money indirectly.

DOJ was not persuaded by Microsoft's argument that physical machines can more easily be counted than intangible copies of computer software. Nor was DOJ convinced that customers might actually favor long-term contracts to guard against unpredictable price increases and other uncertainties. This raised the question; did Microsoft exploit its dominant market position by "insisting" on "unfair" licensing arrangements? Of course not. Consider that Windows became the industry standard because PC-makers thought it was a "superior" product. An assessment that surely took into account the entire set of product features, not only technical features but also ease of use, quality, price, service, and contract terms. Just like any other product in the competitive market. Consider that there were no barriers that would prevent another competitor from driving Windows out as being the market leader. These are simple conditions that exist in an economic market. Those considerations, apparently, did not impress the DOJ's Antitrust Division.

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

The lengthy legal battle began in 1998 when Microsoft was accused of partaking in illegal

The case against Microsoft was brought buy the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as several state Attorneys General. Microsoft is accused of using and maintaining monopoly power to gain an unfair advantage in the market. The case has been under observation for a long time, but the Justice department is having trouble coming up with substantial evidence against Microsoft. Specifically, the Department must prove:That Microsoft has monopoly power and is using it to gain unfair leverage in the market.And that Microsoft has maintained this monopoly power through "exclusionary" or "predatory" acts(Rule).Some say that Microsoft is only taking advantage of its position in the market and using innovative marketing strategies

In the case Microsoft vs. Baker, plaintiffs came forward with a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp for their game system the Xbox 360. When play the system the game disc would supposedly come lose and scratch the disc until it was unplayable. But since only 0.4% of consoles had this issue the district court stated that it was to small for a class action lawsuit and individuals would have to file a lawsuit on their own. The individuals then stipulated a dismissal of the case with prejudice. The district court accepted the dismissal and the individuals then appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court reversed the dismissal and stated the district court had misapplied applicable law and abused striking class

in the most part, states that Microsoft is truly dismantling the competitive market. IBM and Apple created OS/2 and the Mac OS, respectively. Because of this “barrier of entry,” these top companies have not been able to “compete effectively with

The patterns I see with Microsoft’s reactions to competition is that they rely heavily on the fact that they are leaders in the field of operating systems and they use this monopoly as leverage on what they give out to their consumers with their “bundling capabilities” (Rivkin 4). In the past I believe they have been successful against competitors even though they have gotten into legal trouble while doing it. This is because even after the law suits they still remained ahead of the pack in market shares.

Microsoft (MS) is a multinational computer technology corporation that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of software products for computing devices. In the mid 1990’s, Microsoft held the monopoly in the production of Operating Systems (OS) for personal computers (PC). When their monopoly was threatened by Netscape, MS began bundling the Internet Explorer (IE) web browser with Windows, using cross-promotional deals with internet service providers (ISP), and prevented PC makers from customizing the opening screen showing Microsoft. These actions, which some view as illegal and unethical, dissolved any competition, raised the barriers of entry and inhibited

Considering that every computer manufactured in the United States and the world has to have an operating system in order to work Microsoft appears to be dominant in this arena. The company has been so dominant over the years that back in 1998 in a complaint filed against Microsoft in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on May 18, 1998, the Justice Department declares unequivocally that "Microsoft possesses (and for several years has possessed) monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems" (U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation 1998).