Microsoft is Not Guilty of Anti-Trust Laws
Isn't it sad when an act of injustice is done? I personally have never witnessed any innocent people being shot or being arrested right in the middle of a public place but I do know of one injustice that has been done. Ladies and gentlemen Bill Gates and Microsoft are being wrongfully accused of violating Anti-Trust laws. Through my examples I will prove to you that Mr. Gates has conducted nothing but good business and has done nothing wrong. Also where would we be without Microsoft revolutionizing the computer software industry. Also another point to bring up is that this is supposed to be a free enterprise system where the government doesn't interfere with the people's business (like Laissez faire) but obviously we see that isn't true in many ways. It is true Bill Gates did buy out much of his competition or just wiped them out, but who wouldn't want to without the help of Microsoft technology would be years behind what it is today.
To begin with I can see why most people right off the bat say "Microsoft….yes, defiantly a monopoly." After all Microsoft basically eliminated any competition what so ever by either buying them out and terminating their product or using it as their own, or by being so popular and widely used that the little guys really have no chance. Likewise I would be a little upset if I made a product and then was crushed by the bigger guy. Another part that contributed to the fact that Microsoft was considered a monopoly during the trial was "their attitude of fatal arrogance" (Reaves, 1). As Reaves state, and many will agree, "There were two reasons Microsoft came off so badly during their time in the spotlight: their arrogance at the trial, and their general arrogance as a monopoly. Nevertheless another thing that shut the coffin lid on Microsoft was: Microsoft would not have taken efforts to maximize the difficulty of porting Java applications written to its implementation and to drastically limit the ability of developers to write Java applications that would run in both Microsoft's version of the Windows runtime environment and versions complying with Sun's standards. Nor would Microsoft have endeavored to limit Navigator's usage share, to induce ISV's (Independent Software Vender) to neither use nor distribute non-Microsoft Java technologies (U.
As we lose ourselves and our values, worth, and identity as people in the corporate culture, the objectives of monetary profit, status within a company, and machine-like work ethics replace our ethical judgement and our values as people. Perhaps there is nothing we can do about it; after all Skilling and Fastow did not realize what they were doing is immoral and illegal until they were sentenced or even released from their sentence. We are all too absorbed in this capitalistic corporate world we live in. Just like the ancient Chinese philosopher Fu Xuan said, “He who is close to the ink will be stained black,” (Fu, “Prince Shao Fu Xuan”), We have been too used to the immorality and unethical practices of corporate culture that we’re not only numb to the wrongdoings of others within this capitalist society, but we also replace our values as people and our ambitions to do good with objectives of the corporate world. Prebbles posed us the question that after centuries of capitalism’s existence in our society, will our ambitions to do good prevail against our monetary desires and the corporate norm of only profit-driven decisions?
United States versus Microsoft Corporation case was a set of combined civil engagements filed against Microsoft relating to the Sherman Antitrust Act by the Department of Justice. In the case, the Department of Justice purported that Microsoft abused monopoly supremacy on PCs in its control of OS sales and web browser software sales (Lohr& Brinkley, 2001). The conflict evolved around the integration of the internet explorer browser software in Microsoft’s Windows OS; a move that was argued to restrict web browser competitors like Opera and Netscape from accessing the browser market. Microsoft argued that it did not have a case to answer and stated the misfortune was the result of the fierce competition and innovation strategies in its industry (Glader, 2006). The following paper aims at analyzing the merits generated from the final settlement of the case and outlines the parties that benefited and those whose interests were harmed.
A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. A monopoly sells a good for which there is no close substitute. The absence of substitutes makes the demand for the good relatively inelastic thereby enabling monopolies to extract positive profits. It is this monopolizing of drug and process patents that has consumer advocates up in arms. The granting of exclusive rights to pharmacuetical companies over clinical a...
Corporate executives like Kenneth Lay and Martha Stewart were taken before the court for poor ethical practices. Leaders of pharmaceutical companies have been found knowing about distribution of unsafe products. Leaders at Coke Cola were found guilty of racial discrimination and leaders of cruise ships fined for dumping waste in the ocean. News reports exposed Wall Street analysts who created phony reports, made profits, and pushing worthless stocks, left citizens questioning if they should invest their money. Leaders of the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, were cited for practices of employee abuses and gender discrimination.
Even though monopolies are illegal, public corruption allows companies to form and continues to be a problem today. In an article published by the Los Angeles, Anh Do
Oligopolists are drawn in two different directions, either to compete with each other or to collude with each other. If they collude, they end up acting as monopoly and thereby maximising the industry's profits. However they are often tempted to compete with each other inorder to gain a bigger share of the profit of the industry.
There are advantages and disadvantages of a monopoly. One advantages is big profits. A monopoly enjoys economics of scale, as it is the only supplier of a produc...
When the word monopoly is spoken most immediately think of the board game made by Parker Brothers in which each player attempts to purchase all of the property and utilities that are available on the board and drive other players into bankruptcy. Clearly the association between the board game and the definition of the term are literal. The term monopoly is defined as "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices" (Dictionary.com, 2008). Monopolies were quite common in the early days when businesses had no guidelines whatsoever. When the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into break up the Standard Oil business in the late 1800’s and enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (Wikipedia 2001), it set forth precedent for many cases to be brought up against it for years to come.
The term “ethical business” is seen, by many people, as an oxymoron. This is because a business’s main objective is to make as much money as possible. Making the most money possible, however, can often lead to unethical actions. Companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Satyam have been the posterchildren for how corporations’ greed lead to unethical practices. In recent times however, companies have been accused of being unethical based on, not how they manage their finances, but on how they treat the society that they operate in. People have started to realize that the damage companies have been doing to the world around them is more impactful and far worse than any financial fraud that these companies might be engaging in. Events like the BP oil
By law a monopoly is not allowed to exist in the US. It has been long debated whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not? Among other charges Microsoft was charged with "monopolizing the computer operating system market, integrating the Internet Explorer web browser into the operating system in an attempt to eliminate competition from Netscape, and using its market power to form anticompetitive agreements with producers of related goods" (SWLearning).
Microsoft’s mission of placing a “PC running Microsoft software on every desk and in every home” drove their overall strategy early on. Depending on the business segment within Microsoft, one would see in place very different business models as the strategy for each line of business could vary. In the operating system (OS) segment, Microsoft initially brought in an existing product and modified this (MS-DOS) to work with the Intel microprocessor, which were the “brains” of the IBM PC. Microsoft partnered with IBM to provide the operating system for the IBM PC. In addition to developing Windows, Microsoft during this period was working to write applications for the Apple OS.
“His agreements with hardware manufacturers have often served to prevent the success of rival products even when they are already on the market and Microsoft versions have yet to be completed. In 1995, the development of Windows 95, a revolutionary operating system, drove hardware manufacturers to produce computers with more memory and more hard disk space. Microsoft thus effectively compelled the entire computer industry to follow its lead. Such practices involved Gates and Microsoft in legal struggles over alleged anticompetitive practices and copyright infringement throughout the 1990s”(McGuire 1). With their more advanced operating systems they had to have more advanced computers that can run them but the other companies couldn't update their operating system as fast.
Microsoft has always been known as a software company, and not well known for its hardware. In fact, the only hardware that Microsoft sells to the retail market is branded peripherals. In its heyday, Microsoft was a market leader, bring an operating system to the masses, and leading in internet search. In recent years, however, most of the moves that Microsoft has made have not been in a market leader position, but have been in response to competitors threatening Microsoft’s positions.
What is a monopoly? According to Webster's dictionary, a monopoly is "the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market.” Such power in the hands of a few is harmful to the public and individuals because it minimizes, if not eliminates normal competition in a given market and creates undesirable price controls. This, in turn, undermines individual enterprise and causes markets to crumble. In this paper, we will present several aspects of monopolies, including unfair competition, price control, and horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers.
When we look at the laws that have been broken by so many of the top named corporations, I see why they continue to operate in the capacity that they do. When you take in to account the amount of money taken in for overall profits each year versus the fines levied “if” they are caught breaking the law I can see why they take their chances at being caught or not. Although the fines given are typically large amounts, they really are a mere slap on the wrist when compared to the money earned each