Perhaps the best solution to Microsoft’s authority would include structural remedies, such as the divestiture remedy, which may be less subject to gaming, but pose the risk of substantial costs. However, other sources suggest that the most effective remedy may be that the government’s victory eases the way for plaintiffs in private antitrust suits to collect monetary damages, which could be sufficient to deter future anticompetitive conduct (Journal of Economic Perspectives). Whatever the approach to resolving this issue may be, it is certain that the Microsoft monopoly can no longer enjoy its precedent benefits. Nonetheless, there remains a grand possibility that Microsoft will be able to maintain its power to at least some extent, due to the fact that their products are needed, and their competition remains inadequate.
Inner-city America finds it of some interest that this law does not favor the rich, the politically plugged in, or the “white” of this world. America’ richest man, Bill Gates received a stunning setback earlier this month when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled against the $500 billion software company Microsoft, declaring that it violated antitrust law and was in fact a monopoly. In a Newsweek article dated November 15th rntitled “Bill Takes it on the Chin”, Judge Jackson stated: “Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiates that could intensify competion”. Why couldn’t Billy be satisfied with say a $100 billion company? The penalty for ignoring the law of “reed rationing” may include having the software giant broken down into a bunch of little midgets. Are you listening William? Greed attracts powerful enemies.
Back in John D. Rockefeller’s day the business moves he established that created a monopoly were highly intelligent and immoral. He was the first person to build a monopoly setting guidelines for future business leaders. Nonetheless, Microsoft ignored the regulations established under The Sherman Antitrust Act, in 1890 and committed a monopoly but finally settled to make it easier for competitors. Monopolies have been happening since the 19th century to the 21st, but remained unfair form hundreds of
It was on Friday, November 5, 1999, that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had declared Microsoft a monopoly. So, it’s not a question of whether Microsoft is a monopoly, but more so a question of whether it should still be considered a monopoly today. I don’t think that Microsoft should currently be considered a monopoly, but I definitely do believe that it once was. The reason Microsoft should no longer be considered a monopoly is that there are several operating software that now compete with Microsoft. Two of the biggest competitors are Apples OS and Google Chrome's OS. Operating software’s like Apples’ OS and Google Chrome’s OS are close substitutes for Windows. One of the criteria for a firm to be a monopoly is that there are no close substitutes, “A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product does not have any close substitutes (Mankiw 290).” And this
I don’t think the court should have given Microsoft a penalty anyway. I feel the government was harsh with just the fact Microsoft was considered a monopoly. I feel that the government should’ve just given Microsoft a fine and another form of compromise so they can ensure their conduct is up to par. In this way, there won’t have to be any worries about companies becoming monopolies.
 University of Central Florida, Barbara Moore’s Slides, Antitrust and Industrial Policy, 2003?, 15 March 2004, <http://www.bus.ucf.edu/moore/forms/eco2023_b001_ch19.pdf>
Because the field of Business Law is so great, this paper will examine a single aspect of Business Law, that of antitrust action. Specifically, as it is applied to Microsoft, antitrust litigation is raising eyebrows in both the legal and business worlds.
No one company or individual should have exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market. Prosperity in the high-technology economy of the 21st Century will depend on strict enforcement against monopolies that lessen competition along with continued encouragement of innovation. The Department of Justice must continue to open markets and ensure that they are competitive for the benefit of American businesses and consumers.
In 1994 the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Microsoft saying that Microsoft had an exclusive contract with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) which is anticompetitive and allows Microsoft to maintain their monopoly for PC operating systems. A settlement was made which disallowed Microsoft from making integrated products and restricted their licensing activities by not tying software products together. In 1997 the DOJ returned to court saying Microsoft has violated the consent decree as Microsoft to keep up with the new competition has tied Internet Explorer with their OS. This violates the decree. The DOJ was successful in the District Court. It was then brought to the Court of Appeals. The case consisted of the Department of Justice, Attorney Generals from 20 states and the District of Columbia where they sued Microsoft for monopolising the market for operating systems, having anti-competitive contracts with OEMs, attempting to monopolise the market for internet browsers and for integrating their web browser with their operating system. Microsoft was found liable...
In an attempt to decrease competition in the computer technology industry, Microsoft had violated the Sherman Antitrust. In the 1998 case of U.S. vs. Microsoft, the Microsoft company was charged for anticompetitive and monopolistic practices that violated antitrust laws. The plaintiff had claimed that Microsoft had engaged “in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power” (Excerpts) which went against Section 2 of the antitrust law. Microsoft had also allegedly violated Section 1 by “tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements” which was ruled as a “combination… in restraint of trade or commerce” (Excerpts). The Court ruled against Microsoft, exemplifying the ability of the Sherman Antitrust to curb unethical and illegal monopolistic operations even in modern
The facts of the case according to Judge Jackson show that Microsoft was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. They were in the process of doing so by allegedly maintaining a monopoly power by anticompetitive means as well as attempting to monopolize the Web browser market. Microsoft was also accused of forcefully attaching its Internet Explorer Web browser to its windows operating system. They were also accused of making marketing arrangements with other companies, such as Apple, which were constituted unlawful exclusive dealings. These action by Microsoft were in violation of both section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.