Ethical Analysis- U. S.V. Microsoft

Ethical analysis
Case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F. 3rd. 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Enrique Ramos
October 7th/12

Ethical & Legal Environment of Business
Regis University

The purpose of this paper is to provide a Ethical analysis of the case of United States v. Microsoft corporation, 253 F. 3RD. 34.

Ethical fact

• In July 1994, officials at the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), on behalf of the United States, filed suit against Microsoft, charging the company with, among other things, unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in the operating system market through anticompetitive terms in its licensing and software developer agreement. • Three years later, the Justice Department filed a civil contempt action against Microsoft for allegedly violating one of the decree 's provisions. On appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction, this court held that Microsoft 's technological bundling of IE 3.0 and 4.0 with Windows 95 did not violate the relevant provision of the consent decree. • . On May 18, 1998, shortly before issuance of the Microsoft II decision, the United States and a group of State plaintiffs filed separate (and soon thereafter consolidated) complaints, asserting antitrust violations by Microsoft and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against the company 's allegedly unlawful conduct. . . . Relying almost exclusively on Microsoft 's varied efforts to unseat Netscape Navigator as the preeminent internet browser, plaintiffs charged four distinct violations of the Sherman Act: (1) unlawful exclusive dealing arrangements in violation of § 1; (2) unlawful tying of IE to Windows 95 and Windows 98 in violation of § 1; (3) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in the PC operating system market in violation of § 2; and (4)unlawful attempted monopolization of the internet browser market in violation of § 2. • Mediation failed after nearly four months of settlement talks between the parties. On April 3, 2000, with the parties ' briefs having been submitted and considered, the District Court issued its conclusions of law. The District Court found Microsoft liable on the § 1 tying and § 2 monopoly maintenance and attempted monopolization claims, Conclusions of Law, at 35-51, while ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support a § 1 exclusive dealing violation. • Microsoft filed a notice of appeal within a week after the District Court issued its Final Judgment. This court then ordered that any proceedings before it be heard by the court sitting en 3 banc. Before any substantive matters were addressed by this court, however, the District Court certified appeal of the case brought by the United States directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 29(b), while staying the final judgment order in the federal and state cases pending appeal. The States thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in their case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the Government 's case and remanded the matter to this court; the Court likewise denied the States ' petition for writ of certiorari. This consolidated appeal followed.

Ethical Issues
The Ethical issues: Is it ethical attempting to monopolize the Web browser market? Is it ethical tying its Internet Explorer (IE) browser application to its Windows operating system (OS)? and is it unlawfully maintain a monopoly in the operating system market through anticompetitive terms in its licensing and software developer agreements” . Is it ethical for the District judges to engage in impermissible ex parte contacts and make inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending?
Ethical Rules

- Utilitarianism maintains an ethical principle that: “Actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they produce for everyone in society”. (Velasquez, 2012).
- The Sherman Antitrust Act protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of the consumer".
- Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative. An action is morally right for a person if, and only if, in performing the action, the person does not use others only as a means for advancing his or her own interests, but always (1) treats them as they have freely and rationally consented to be treated, and (2) contributes to their ability to pursue what they have freely and rationally chosen to pursue.

Ethical Observation

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1973. It prescribes ethical norms for federal judges as a means to preserve the actual and apparent integrity of the federal judiciary The Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires federal judges to “avoid public comment on the merits of pending or impending” cases. The District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant.

Ethical Conclusion I believe that Microsoft has engaged in actions to preserve its Windows monopoly that violate antitrust laws and I think also that the company has used the power of its Windows monopoly to attempt to monopolize the market for Internet browsing software. Microsoft contends that it is simply trying to innovate its products but in the long run, consumers will be harmed, because there will be less competition and fewer choices.

Regarding judge issue. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1973. It prescribes ethical norms for federal judges as a means to preserve the actual and apparent integrity of the federal judiciary. Every federal judge receives a copy of the Code, the Commentary to the Code, the Advisory Opinions of the Judicial Conference 's Committee on Codes of Conduct, and digests of the Committee 's informal, unpublished opinions. The judge violated ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters
References
• Mallor, Jane et al. Business Law, Chapters 5-6, 9-18, and 28-34, 15th edition, Mc Graw Hill • 253 F.3d 34 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES took from LEXIS/NEXIS • Velasquez, M.G. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, p. 97-103, 120. • Sherman Antitrust Act, Legal Information Institute.

References: • Mallor, Jane et al. Business Law, Chapters 5-6, 9-18, and 28-34, 15th edition, Mc Graw Hill • 253 F.3d 34 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES took from LEXIS/NEXIS • Velasquez, M.G. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, p. 97-103, 120. • Sherman Antitrust Act, Legal Information Institute.