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

Microsoft has developed into an inescapable force within the technological field. Coming from a delayed humble beginning, it has had to devote large sums of money to approach the levels of the founding technological companies. Today, Microsoft controls the market in computer software. How they have achieved this status is what some have come to question. Through “bundling” software programs, manipulating other computer companies, and packaging deals with personal computers, Microsoft has managed to eradicate nearly all competitors in the computer software market (Love, 1997). This near monopoly affects the entire spectrum of classes, including the consumer, other networking providers,

- There were large cost amounts that the Department of National Revenue dealt with that Microsoft was supposed to be charged with.

• A class action was filed on behalf of two Canadian citizens, representing a common class of Canadian subscribers to the MSN Messenger service, against the Microsoft Corporation

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 Justice Department and the states contend that Microsoft is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was passed by Congress in 1890. The act has two sections. Section I prohibits certain types of agreements that restrict the flow of trade. Section II prohibits the misuse of monopoly power, namely anti-competitive actions that seek to maintain that monopoly power and actions that attempt to use that monopoly power to dominate another market (2).

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.

Commencing in 1990, Microsoft was investigated and then charged with violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act which governs United States businesses. The company was determined to be a monopoly, and one which used anti-competitive practices to keep its leading edge on the market. As would most any organization on the receiving end of the allegations, Microsoft did not agree with the charges and sought to defend its business

     Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible Personal Computer (PC) operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows, the operating system of all PC's.

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

Windows” (“Microsoft: Court’s…). Microsoft implies that there still is competition; such as Mac OS, Linux, and other operating systems. Though this claim may have support, the “District Court found that Windows accounts for a greater than

Google is arguably the most popular search engine used on the internet. The company offers superior search results and clearly employs workers with innovative ideas that can keep the company ahead of the competition. However Google’s own mission statement requires that it “Do no evil,” meaning that it has made readily available the tools that have made the company successful. The Justice Department would like to categorize Google as a monopoly, but due to its open book reporting and its development of additional services, proving monopolistic status would be difficult and perhaps ineffective.

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.

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).