A position paper on the anti-trust claims against Microsoft.
This paper explores the charge against Microsoft that it was illegally using its monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems in order to hurt the competition. The paper argues that Microsoft’s practices were dangerous, whether they were legal or illegal, and Microsoft was not only controlling Internet access but was creating the future Internet on its own terms. The paper contends that Microsoft was supposed to be broken up, Microsoft should be forced to alter its business practices, and the Department of Justice should probably have gone further in placing limitations on Microsoft.
I agree that Microsoft should be forced to alter its business practices, and the Department of Justice should probably have gone further in placing limitations on Microsoft. What Microsoft intended to do was to have a complete monopoly through integration or bundling. In its antitrust actions against Microsoft, the US government alleged that the company engaged in anticompetitive business practices when it integrated its browser, Internet Explorer, into the Windows operated system (Kit 176). This dispute is not just about a company, but about the whole idea of free enterprise and competition. How this case was handled is very important for the future. If barriers to competition were not reduced in this case, then other companies would be free to do as Microsoft did. Microsoft came very close to destroying the market.