Microsoft Case
Part I:
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).
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.
…show more content…
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).
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).
No matter who wins, the case almost certainly will be appealed, probably all the way to the Supreme Court. If the government wins at the trial court, it has already specified that it wants Microsoft to cancel contracts deemed exclusionary. In addition, the government wants Microsoft either to strip out its Internet browsing technology from Windows 98 or to include a rival browser made by Netscape Communications Corp. The government also indicated in October that, should it win, it would seek an additional hearing where it would suggest additional sanctions that should be placed
Bill Gates and his company prosecuted many individuals and companies for software theft to show the world that intellectual property cannot be stolen without punishment. In 1998 Gates noticed that there was a huge gap between the number of computers being sold each year and the number of computer software. He quickly realized that many people were stealing computer software online. Gates knew that using computer software without paying was illegal and he intended to make everyone that stole their software pay the price for their crime. When Microsoft first discovered that their software was being stolen they decided that if people were going to steal software then they should steal Microsoft’s software and eventually Gates would find a way to collect money from his stolen property. Microsoft went after over 80 companies that they discovered were using their computer software without purchasing it and they pressed legal action and in the end got the money they had earned (Down to Earth). Before Microsoft prosecuted these companies for illegally downloading software, stealing intellectual property online was not considered important and legal action was almost never taken against those who committed the theft. Thanks to Bill Gates and his company intellectual theft is now taken
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 their dominance of the industry at stake. They could potentially come out on top if left to continue their current tactics. They are masterfully “marketing their products” and it is paying off for them (Love, 1997).
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
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 Sherman Anti-Trust is not explicit in its terms and it is not clear whether a trust is illegal or preventing competition is. In Section one of the act, it says that a trust has to also be “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations” to fully be declared illegal. Even in section two of the act, it states,” Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony” (Cornell). The lines “among the several states” can be used as a
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
Windows” (“Microsoft: Court’s…). Microsoft implies that there still is competition; such as Mac OS, Linux, and other operating systems. Though this claim may have support, the “District Court found that Windows accounts for a greater than
Microsoft and its supporter’s claims that they are not breaking any laws, and are just
The patterns I see with Microsoft’s reactions to competition is that they rely heavily on the fact that they are leaders in the field of operating systems and they use this monopoly as leverage on what they give out to their consumers with their “bundling capabilities” (Rivkin 4). In the past I believe they have been successful against competitors even though they have gotten into legal trouble while doing it. This is because even after the law suits they still remained ahead of the pack in market shares.
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