The Microsoft Anti-Trust Case: Presidential Candidate Recommendations

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 Justice Department maintains that the most critical concern involved Microsoft’s agreement to license a code to other companies, which allows rival products to communicate with Windows software. As of January 17, 2004, only eleven companies have chosen to license this code, most of which are not much competition for Microsoft. In addition, many companies are accusing Microsoft of demanding unreasonable fees and tedious restrictions for the code license (Krim, 2004).

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).

After a five-year investigation costing millions of dollars, the Antitrust Division found little that could be characterized as anti-competitive. But that did not stop the government. Not only did DOJ file an antitrust suit that caused Microsoft to cancel its planned

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

The hostile takeover of PeopleSoft by Oracle was the results of a lengthy court battle that raised many issues. One issue in particular concerned anti-trust laws and their application to technology companies. The Department of Justice, in an attempt to block the takeover, argued that a merger of this nature would lessen competition and ultimately limit customer choice. An appellant court judge ruled that this case did not meet the criterion of an anti-trust breach and ruled in favor of Oracle. Never the less, many other factors

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.

A look at Microsoft’s internal factors reveals several strengths and weaknesses. One of the greatest strengths Microsoft has is its name brand recognition. Microsoft is the world’s largest software developer with almost $70 billion in revenue for 2011 (Turits & Wesman, 2012). Most consumers in the United States know or use Microsoft’s PC OS, giving it 86% of the OS market share, compared to 5% for Linux and 9% for Mac ("OS Statistics", 2012). Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices division leads the gaming market with the X-box 360 holding 40% (Forbes, 2012) of the market share for the current generation of consoles. Microsoft is continuing its development of its subscription services that include X-Box Live, Windows Live, and Zune Music Pass. Most PC users are familiar with Microsoft’s business tools, specifically MS Office.

Microsoft is a highly diversified company. Its technologically-related products span from software to music players to game consoles to web browsers to search engines to phones. However, its flagship product, the product which has been the primary driver of its profits has been Microsoft Windows, the ubiquitous operating system that runs on virtually every computer in the world. Windows has been deemed so critical that even Microsoft's competitor Apple was effectively forced by market pressures to allow its Macs to run Windows, in an effort to boost sales. "As astounding as Apple's success has been, it hasn't put a dent in the Microsoft Office monopoly. [Current CEO] Ballmer and company still profit on every Macbook running Word, Excel and PowerPoint" (Greg 2012).But while Microsoft continues to make its highly profitable Windows products (despite industry criticism about its user features); it has struggled to diversify in its many critical areas, most notable in its music, phones, and Internet service.

The best position on the Microsoft monopoly problem is one best for the general public, those who are and will be using Intel-PC products. This position is in opposition to Microsoft and to support the State and the public. This will consequently give the public better choice, thereby keeping the price of the product down and benefiting the general public. To understand why this position is the best choice two simple questions must be answered. The first is, is Microsoft a monopoly? And the second is, whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not, does that have a negative effect on the consumer? The answer to the first question is found by examining Microsoft and the second question is found by considering

Microsoft has a long history of engaging in monopolistic behavior, from the initial efforts to protect their operating system business to the forced bundling of key software components including Internet Explorer (Meese, 1999). The goals of this analysis include a critical evaluation of why Microsoft has been investigated for antitrust violations, an assessment of how they are trying to gain monopolistic strength in the computer software industry, in addition to an assessment of the good and bad aspects of monopolies in general.

Was it ethical for Microsoft to force users of its Windows operating system to use its internet browsers as well by bundling the programs together and preventing PC manufacturers from making other software available to computer buyers? Was Microsoft’s behavior toward its rivals ethical? Why or why not?

Microsoft had entered various new markets in which it has no propriety advantages with it’s new diversification strategy. Microsoft could not conquer all the markets alone as they would have to face new challenges and many industries were against Microsoft getting into their industry as they feared that Microsoft would monopolize the market. Hence, it improved its already existing as well as created new partnerships in the newly targeted industry. Microsoft hence, needed to constantly monitor the dynamic changes in the markets and adjust its strategies to capture opportunities in these markets.