On 18 may 1998, the Ministry of justice filed antitrust charges against Microsoft (msft) volume. Charges were brought to determine whether to associate the Microsoft additional software into an operating system constitutes a monopolistic actions. The suit was brought after the browser wars that led to the collapse of the top of Microsoft’s competitor, Netscape, which occurred when Microsoft started giving away its browser for free.
Antitrust law is applied practically in all industries and at all levels of the business. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrict trade, including pricing, anti-competitive corporate mergers, and predatory actions designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.
What happened in the case of Microsoft?
The Ministry of justice against Microsoft was plagued with problems, including questions about whether the charges should have been brought against Microsoft in the first place. The argument proposed that if Microsoft was deemed a monopoly, it is not a coercive monopoly. People chose to run Microsoft Windows on their computers. With options like Unix, Linux and Macintosh, consumers preferred the convenience of Windows product from Microsoft. Windows may not be an excellent product, but it can work on the laptop or on the number of clones. The simplicity of its installation and other software has allowed it to become the norm.
The government case accused Microsoft of making it difficult for users to install competing software on computers running Windows. If Microsoft was found to have made it unreasonably difficult for consumers to uninstall Internet Explorer and use a competing browser, the company’s practice will be deemed anticompetitive. The case meandered along with accusations of misleading statements and distracting courtroom. Economists in support for Microsoft even published a full page open letter to US President bill Clinton in major Newspapers that the antitrust laws harm consumers and the success of domestic companies in global competition.
How MJ ruled
Despite creative video editing, facts, and letters, Microsoft lost. The DECREE of 3 April 2000, called for Microsoft to split the company in half, creating two companies that were supposed to be called “baby bills”. The operating system will be half of the company and handle the software will do the rest.
Before this could be achieved, however, the fangs were removed from the ruling during the appeal process. However, instead of having violated the antitrust ruling, Microsoft considers its once invincible market share erode due to old-fashioned competitors. As a result, many now wonder if the involvement of the antitrust cases against non-coercive monopolies is just an expensive duplication of the free market can do at no cost.
(For more on this topic, read the history of U.S. monopolies.)