Microsoft Antitrust Case

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

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,

The consent decree also prohibited Microsoft from requiring OEMs to license any other product as a condition of their Windows licenses. The government continued its investigation into Microsoft, primarily at the urging of Microsoft's competitors who felt that Microsoft was ignoring the conditions of the consent decree.

The government has been looking into Microsoft since 1990, when the Federal Trade Commission first started examining charges of monopolistic behavior. In 1995, Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department reached a settlement that required the company to change a variety of business practices, including key aspects of its licensing agreements with personal computer makers (2).

America's century-old antitrust law is increasingly irrelevant to our current worldwide information technology market. This law is outdated, in accordance to the modern Microsoft situation, because in the past there wasn't technology as there is now. Recently the government has been accusing Microsoft as being a monopoly. "Techno-Optimists" claim that "efforts by government to promote competition by restraining high-tech firms that acquire market power will only stifle competition." Some analysts disagree. They concede that dynamic technology makes it tough to sustain market power. Still, consumers will want compatible equipment, which will lead them to buy whatever product other consumers are using,

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

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

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

had to buy, Microsoft also would sing contracts with the vendors for long periods of time

Licensing: Microsoft should be forced to discontinue any licensing practices (NT, database server, etc.) that restrict customer dealings with competitors or require customer use of MSFT products. Exclusive dealing and tying purchase of one product to purchase of another should be unlawful for this monopolist where linked to the operating

Microsoft Corporation is currently one of the most well-known software companies in the world. It’s focus has been on operating systems (OS), such as the Windows OS since its creation in the 1970s and has expanded both in size and in goals since. Because of Microsoft Corporation’s mainly stable growth in both revenue and employee number, Microsoft plays a large role in the economy and job market of the United States economy and is a beneficial and solid investment for individuals to make.

In sum, Microsoft (in the courts' view) dominated a market the boundaries of which prevent competition from entering and consumers from leaving. This in turn means that, unfettered by competition, Microsoft did not need to succeed on its merits; it could charge a price for Windows higher than if it had to respond to competition.

The government’s role is to prevent harmful monopoly. A harmful monopoly arises when a company starts abusing its power as a monopoly. A harmful monopoly restricts output of the market creating greater demand and thus charging higher prices. A harmful monopoly also does not innovate or change since there is no matching competition. By charging higher prices and having power over key resources a monopoly could restrict entry of other potential competitors. Microsoft does not violate any of these criterion for a monopoly. It has created competition and it does not charge ridiculously on its major software like Windows. The charges on the software reflects not the cost of making copies of the software but the high salaries of programmers, and cost of packaging, printing costly manuals and providing other support and services.

Microsoft stock went public in 1986 at $21 per share. In 1991, Jon Shirley retired and was replaced by Michael R. Hallman; Microsoft became the first PC software firm to generate more than $1 billion sales in one year. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice claimed that Microsoft had violated the Sherman Act and in 2000 Microsoft had to face two antitrust cases.

The best position on the Microsoft monopoly problem is one best for the general public, those who are and will be using Intel-PC products. This position is in opposition to Microsoft and to support the State and the public. This will consequently give the public better choice, thereby keeping the price of the product down and benefiting the general public. To understand why this position is the best choice two simple questions must be answered. The first is, is Microsoft a monopoly? And the second is, whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not, does that have a negative effect on the consumer? The answer to the first question is found by examining Microsoft and the second question is found by considering