US Vs. 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,

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

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?

Donna Vizcaino, Jon R. Waite, Mark Stout, Geoffrey Culbert, Lesley Stuart, Thomas Morgan, Elizabeth Spokoiny, and Larry Spokoiny sued on behalf of themselves and a court certified class against Microsoft Corporation and its various pension and welfare plans, including its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP), and sought a determination that they were entitled even as independent contractors to participate in the plan benefits because those benefits were available to Microsoft 's common law employees.

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

A recurring point in Gilbert's studies included the notion that people were utterly incapable of making predictions that would lead to their actual optimal happiness. A study showed "that about nine out of ten people expect to feel more regret when they foolishly switch stocks than when they foolishly fail to switch stocks", but the study also showed that those "nine out of ten people are wrong" in assuming that expectation (Gilbert 135). A majority of consumers also made an incorrect assumption, as described by Stiglitz, which resulted in the maintenance and growth of one of the most well known monopolies of the present. The consumers assumed that, due to it's "near-monopoly on PC operating systems," Microsoft was a good and innovative company and is capable in handling computer systems. This was not the case when it came to "alternative technologies" such as the "development of the Internet and the web browser" because their competitor, Netscape, was "building on government-funded research" while Microsoft had no such incentive (Stiglitz 405). Microsoft then decided to launch their Internet Explorer, but by itself Internet Explorer could not compete against Netscape. They knew this, and so "decided to use its monopoly power in PC operating systems to make sure that the playing field was not level." They offered Internet Explorer for

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.

In the end, the judge found Microsoft to indeed be a monopoly which threatened other

“All of these qualities were evident in Gates’s nimble response to the sudden public interest in the Internet. Beginning in 1995 and 1996, Gates feverishly refocused Microsoft on the development of consumer and enterprise software solutions for the Internet, developed the Windows CE operating system platform for networking non computer devices such as home televisions and personal digital assistants, created the Microsoft Network to compete with America Online and other Internet providers, and through Gates’s company Corbis, acquired the huge Bett mann photo archives and other collections for use in electronic distribution.

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

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.

dominant incumbent even if the incumbent priced its products substantially above competitive levels for a significant period of time” (“Microsoft: Court’s Findings…). Obviously, the rival companies such as, IBM and Apple, have found great fact, that

This implies that the companies that are implicated in the wrong doing were actually in talks with the government long before the lawsuit was filed. This could have been for the purposes of mediation or to determine just how far outside the law the companies were operating.