The Microsoft Antitrust Case

In a stunning setback for Bill Gates’ software empire, the judge in the Microsoft ruled that the software giant is a monopoly that wielded its power to stifle competition. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson delivered his much-anticipated findings of fact—his take on the contradictory evidence and insider e-mails that have surfaced since the government sued Microsoft for antitrust violations before. Jackson still has to rule on whether Microsoft worked in illegal anticompetitive practices, as the Justice Department has charged. A defiant Gates, appearing

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,

This paper was conducted as a Discussion Board Post assigned by Professor J. Reinke of: Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.

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

On July 15, 1994, the United States sued Microsoft for unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for PC operating system software. The lawsuit alleged that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive marketing practices directed at PC manufacturers that distributed Microsoft operating system software preinstalled on its PCs. Microsoft began to levy fines against original equipment manufacturing (OEM) companies who distributed or promoted operating systems other than Microsoft. On August 21, 1995, Microsoft "consented" to a "Final Judgement" against them.

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 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).

This article is about the threat of merger and the influence of a monopolistic media. The

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.

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

* Refusal to deal: SesamWare rendered other companies inadequate to compete by strategically eliminating them from the market.

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

What is a monopoly? According to Webster's dictionary, a monopoly is "the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market.” Such power in the hands of a few is harmful to the public and individuals because it minimizes, if not eliminates normal competition in a given market and creates undesirable price controls. This, in turn, undermines individual enterprise and causes markets to crumble. In this paper, we will present several aspects of monopolies, including unfair competition, price control, and horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers.

The Microsoft Corporation has lead people believe that they were attempting to gain monopoly power in the computer operating systems market. A monopoly market structure consists of having one firm that has control of the resources and market by selling a unique good that has no available substitutes, in which; make it very difficult for others to enter into this market. In America, we enjoy a free market rather than monopolies because monopolies create disadvantages to our society. However, having monopolistic power in a market is not necessarily bad, in some cases, monopolies are tolerated. There is reason to believe that Microsoft was trying to gain