Microsoft Monopoly Case Study

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,

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?

Even with this publicly ethical image, Microsoft has been mired in litigation since 1990, and has paid billions of dollars in legal settlements and fees to address allegations of anti-competitive business practices. Hollywood even jumped on the bandwagon with the 2001

Netscape and Sun Microsystems pressured the Department of Justice for action. Other competitor's felt Microsoft used "predatory and anti-competitive conduct" to impede other platform threats, thereby further entrenching its operating system monopoly. The Department of Justice continued its investigations and actively pursued investigations into the alleged monopolistic activities of Microsoft. During the course of the investigation, Microsoft and the Department of Justice continued to negotiate a new consent decree. After eighteen unsuccessful drafts, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with twenty state

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).

The role of antitrust laws has been the subject of numerous publications that have attempted to provide a precise set of reasons and inspirations for their creation. However, there are still many schools of thought on the subject and much debate over the effectiveness and legitimate implementation of these laws. This paper analyzes the three main antitrust laws that the federal branch of the United States government uses to try to restrict monopolies. This paper also looks at antitrust laws in the modern business environment, and attempts to relay the information in a manner that a newcomer to the subject will understand the concept as it relates to modern technology and business practices. The findings of this paper indicate that the topic of antitrust laws is more complex than many believe and, depending on the position of the person affected by monopolies, the sentiment ranges widely.

Back when the America was divided in thirteen states, the commerce was small and still had many points to improve. As the time passed, these small business started to make commerce between different states, and, consequently, required the government to create laws regulating the commerce, such as the Interstate Commerce Act. With the help of the government, the economy started growing, and so, many monopolies started to appear and so to control business. Years later, these monopolies were much bigger and consequently, the prosperity of country was threatened since there were any competition, nor any incentive to provide best products opportunities. Therefore, the U.S. government was now required to create new laws regulating and intervening in the economy, even though going against the capitalist ideal.

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.

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

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

In your view, did Intel violate either of the two key sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act?

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