Microsoft Antitrust Case Summary
In United States vs. Microsoft Corporation it was a case of U.S. antitrust law in which the
Microsoft Corporation supposedly violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that anti-competitive behavior such as contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade are all illegal. Section 2 states that establishments of monopolies and attempts at monopolies are illegal and the violation must be proved. The case was initiated in May of 1998 and the trial opened in October of 1998.
The plaintiffs argued that in Microsoft’s bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with their Microsoft Windows operating system, they restricted the competition of web browsers.
Every user who bought a computer …show more content…
All of this information was presented and the case was tried before Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In Judge
Jackson’s final judgment of the trial, he stated that ''the court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market,'' as well as ''unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system'' -- all in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I agree with the conclusion, but I don’t think that it
would make much of a difference or that it would benefit anyone to split up Microsoft or the products. In bundling together the Microsoft Operating System and Internet Explorer, they are simply taking advantage of an opportunity to maximize the amount of consumers using Internet
Explorer. This violates the Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2, however it is a benefit to the consumer even if it does create a much greater competitive advantage. If a consumer desires to have different browser, they are very much allowed to download another or buy one of their liking (and in my opinion it was the best out there before Firefox and Google Chrome came
along
Microsoft Corporation supposedly violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that anti-competitive behavior such as contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade are all illegal. Section 2 states that establishments of monopolies and attempts at monopolies are illegal and the violation must be proved. The case was initiated in May of 1998 and the trial opened in October of 1998.
The plaintiffs argued that in Microsoft’s bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with their Microsoft Windows operating system, they restricted the competition of web browsers.
Every user who bought a computer …show more content…
All of this information was presented and the case was tried before Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In Judge
Jackson’s final judgment of the trial, he stated that ''the court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market,'' as well as ''unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system'' -- all in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I agree with the conclusion, but I don’t think that it
would make much of a difference or that it would benefit anyone to split up Microsoft or the products. In bundling together the Microsoft Operating System and Internet Explorer, they are simply taking advantage of an opportunity to maximize the amount of consumers using Internet
Explorer. This violates the Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2, however it is a benefit to the consumer even if it does create a much greater competitive advantage. If a consumer desires to have different browser, they are very much allowed to download another or buy one of their liking (and in my opinion it was the best out there before Firefox and Google Chrome came
along