Analysis Of The Microsoft Monopoly

The Microsoft Monopoly 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

As of now, there are other companies with enough market power to give Microsoft competition, so splitting it up now would be a lot less beneficial than it would have been in 1999 or 2000, when it was the main competitor. There is a metaphorical saying that two heads are better than one, so if the computer industry had two heads then it would be much better off. In other words, more firms mean more competition and more competition means that each company will strive to be better than the other companies. If each company strives to be better than the other companies, then this means a better product will be produced for the consumer and new technological advances will be made and more innovation will take place. If Microsoft was broken up back in 1999 then it could have given rise for many different competing companies to exist in the computer industry today, and the industry would look very different, perhaps even