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 …show more content…
It would be detrimental for a company to refuse compliance of Microsoft's new standard. This is another complaint of critics. That manufacturers had no other choice but to do what Microsoft said, out of fear of their own company losing profits.
Microsoft also "pulls the strings" it has with other ISP's and software companies. There is a lot of software that is not made by Microsoft that comes with the Windows package. Some of these include, AOL, Prodigy, AT&T, Quicken, just to name a few. Microsoft gives these companies and their icons and programs are displayed on the Windows desktop.
In return, these companies must give preferential treatment in promotion and the like to Microsoft. One example is AOL's new 4.0 browser is specially designed to work best with the Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 browser. Much of the increase in AOL's clientele base can be attributed to the combined efforts of Microsoft and AOL. Microsoft is not only working with ISP's, but also with companies that build and maintain web pages and servers.
Microsoft also gives them preferential treatment through Windows and in return, they make their web pages to be compliant with the Microsoft browser. Most web pages even have a little disclaimer that says, "Best viewed with Microsoft
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
As part of the "Final Judgement", Microsoft was prohibited from entering into agreements allowing them to fine OEM's for using
Microsoft has grown into an enormous and powerful corporation by a combination of aggressive business practices and having written operating systems (DOS and Windows) for personal computers. From operating systems it branched out into other software which has, along with the operating system, become something of an industry standard.
Microsoft got so into the feel of being a monopoly that they stopped putting
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.
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.
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
Another question posed by the case was whether or not Microsoft’s conduct benefitted consumers. The senior group vice president of Microsoft, Paul Maritz believes Microsoft operations did benefit consumers, stating that Window’s popularity was due to Microsoft’s “efforts to innovate, evangelize and license the software cheaply” (Baron, p. 317). Microsoft’s alleged monopoly did benefit consumers when price and compatibility are considered, as the operating software was cheap and accessible by most consumers, especially given the fact so many applications were written specifically to interact with
Relatively speaking, Microsoft uses many of the same strategies for its promotions as Sony and Nintendo.
had to buy, Microsoft also would sing contracts with the vendors for long periods of time
Microsoft has been fighting competitors in the Operating System fields as well as the Search field for many years. After Apple launched its new Macintosh computer, Microsoft came out with its first production of Windows which had a graphic user interface. Microsoft had 95% of all OS on individual PC’s in the 2000’s where apple only had about 2%-3% (Rivkin 2). A new venture that Microsoft was working toward was application software where the produced Microsoft Word and Excel. At first these two applications where not very popular on PC computers because WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 where the main applications being run. Microsoft’s solution to this competition was
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).
They have expand their business from only on computer software and hardware to online search engine, home gaming devices and smartphone, those business are the popular business in the world, Microsoft is trying to adapt the new market.
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
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