Microsoft Antitrust Act Case Study

The facts of the case according to Judge Jackson show that Microsoft was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. They were in the process of doing so by allegedly maintaining a monopoly power by anticompetitive means as well as attempting to monopolize the Web browser market. Microsoft was also accused of forcefully attaching its Internet Explorer Web browser to its windows operating system. They were also accused of making marketing arrangements with other companies, such as Apple, which were constituted unlawful exclusive dealings. These action by Microsoft were in violation of both section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The case was originally brought against Microsoft in May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice and 20 states including Florida and the District of Columbia.

This occurred after Microsoft had a case brought against them for violating its 1995 consent decree by making Internet Explore tied into its operating system.

This was later thrown out. However, later during the 1998 trial, Bill gates was extremely uncooperative in answering the courts questions, among other somewhat unethical acts. During the trial Microsoft also tried to prove that Windows would not function properly without Internet Explore. Their demonstration to prove this was found to be very much an orchestrated and possibly falsified demonstration. On November 5, 1999, Judge Jackson issued his initial findings of fact. These findings alleged that Microsoft had held a monopoly power that it then used it to harm consumers, rivals, and other companies. On February 1, 2000, Microsoft field a brief alleging that recent AOL-Time Warner merger was its chief reason that the case against them should be thrown out. On April 3, 2000, Judge Jackson issued his conclusions of law, which found Microsoft in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman

Antitrust Act. This action was later appealed by Microsoft. On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies. On February 27, 2001, the federal appeals court hears out Microsoft's appeal of Judge Jackson's decision. They later reverse Judge Jacksons ruling to break up Microsoft. On November 2, 2001, the Department of Justice finally developed terms with Microsoft to settle the case once and for all. The settlement would require Microsoft to share its application and programming interfaces with third-party developers as well as judgment to appoint a panel to ensure its compliance with the settlement.
Overall, I support the outcome of this case. Microsoft even now, is a very controlling company and pushy company. If it were not for this court order there would be much less competition on the market. It would also have given Microsoft a monopoly on many other programs, such as word processers too email applications. Because if it were up to Microsoft, only Microsoft applications would work in the Windows environment.