|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Background:
Microsoft is a large diversified computer software manufacturer, which is divided into seven core business units. They include:
· Windows Client, including the Microsoft® Windows® XP desktop operating system, Windows 2000, and Windows Embedded operating system.
· Information Worker, including Microsoft Office, Microsoft Publisher, Microsoft Visio®, Microsoft Project, and other stand-alone desktop applications. ...
· Server Platforms, including the Microsoft Windows Server System™ integrated server software, software developer tools, and MSDN®. ...
· Home & Entertainment, including Microsoft Xbox®, consumer hardware and software, online games, and our TV platform.
With the exception of the Business Solutions and Home & Entertainment divisions, Microsoft’s products are applications based on the Windows operating system. ... The consent decree also included the provision that “Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of the agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products); or the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-Microsoft product.”
The last provision in essence prohibited bundling of products by contract, but allows Microsoft to continue to develop applications for use with its Windows operating system. This enabled Microsoft to continue to tie its applications to the Windows operating system so that consumers must have it to run the applications.
US v. Microsoft:
On May 18, 1998, the U. ... Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft claiming that the company had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The DOJ charged that Microsoft acted in a manor to prevent competition. The DOJ’s case was predicated on four violations: 1) Microsoft had illegally forced OEM manufacturers to sign agreements of exclusivity; 2) Microsoft tied the purchase of its internet browser, Internet Explorer, to the purchase of its Windows operating system; 3) Microsoft attempted to gain monopoly power in the internet browser market by forcing OEM’s to make Internet Explorer the default browser on all Windows computers, and Microsoft forced OEMs to not preinstall IE; 4) Microsoft has monopolistic power in the computer operating systems market and used anticompetitive and predatory tactics to maintain its monopoly power.
In the case of the United State versus Microsoft, the main allegations were based on the Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. ... In the case of the United States v. Microsoft Corporation, the plaintiff charged that Microsoft tied its browser (Internet Explorer or IE) to its operating system (Windows), which was an unlawful tying arrangement that restrained the competition. ... Steel Corporation v. ... Microsoft extended special pricing to its OEMs in order to push new products in to the market. When Microsoft challenged Netscape for market share in the Internet browser industry, Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer product with its widely accepted operating system. In a court ruling against Microsoft in 2000, a federal district court stated that Microsoft violated Section 1 by unlawfully tying its browser to its Windows operating system. Clearly, Microsoft fits the bill for items two, three, and four, the argument is whether item one- namely if IE and Windows are separate products, and if this is an unacceptable practice in the software industry.
Approximate Word count = 2694
Approximate Pages = 10.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|