On May 18, 1998, The United States filed a civil complaint against Microsoft for alleged anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2. Additionally, a group of state plaintiffs filed a separate civil complaint alleging similar violations of federal law and equivalent provisions of various state laws (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1998). The plaintiffs claimed the Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling pf operating systems and web browser sales. Another issue was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle the Internet Explorer web browser software with their operating systems. Additional claims stated that Microsoft was restricting the market’s
…show more content…
Firstly, before this case Microsoft was acting as an illegal monopoly. Because of the deciding in this case, Microsoft can no longer act as an illegal monopoly and some of the market share can be redistributed naturally to other competitors that were struggling in the market. As we now see, there are many competitors that people now value equally or more than Microsoft software (i.e. Google or Firefox). Secondly, due to the third-party and panel having access to Microsoft’s systems, records, and source codes for five years, Microsoft was essentially required to comply with the court’s ruling. This prevented Microsoft from attempting to build their monopoly back up again after things had settled down. Finally, Microsoft was sort of an example for other companies attempting to follow in their path. The courts did punish Microsoft in some form, however it could have been a little bit stronger reprimand in my opinion, which could deter other companies from participating in similar illegal practices. I understand the both points of view from this case, the supporters and non-supporters of Microsoft, but I believe the court’s decision in punishing Microsoft, even if it was only somewhat minor, was the correct
Firstly, before this case Microsoft was acting as an illegal monopoly. Because of the deciding in this case, Microsoft can no longer act as an illegal monopoly and some of the market share can be redistributed naturally to other competitors that were struggling in the market. As we now see, there are many competitors that people now value equally or more than Microsoft software (i.e. Google or Firefox). Secondly, due to the third-party and panel having access to Microsoft’s systems, records, and source codes for five years, Microsoft was essentially required to comply with the court’s ruling. This prevented Microsoft from attempting to build their monopoly back up again after things had settled down. Finally, Microsoft was sort of an example for other companies attempting to follow in their path. The courts did punish Microsoft in some form, however it could have been a little bit stronger reprimand in my opinion, which could deter other companies from participating in similar illegal practices. I understand the both points of view from this case, the supporters and non-supporters of Microsoft, but I believe the court’s decision in punishing Microsoft, even if it was only somewhat minor, was the correct