Okay, I am only a 16 year old and havent really read up on the case. I am kinda guessing so plz help me out. Okay, the US filed this suit against MS because MS bought a lot of stock in apple and Bill gates agreed with Steve Jobs to ship all macs with Internet Explorer instead of Netscape. Right?? Again, this is a guess. But if a consumer really wanted a different browser, couldnt they go to a damn store and buy one. If they really wanted one, they could buy one and not sue MS. Right? This is a shot in the dark plz help me out.
Matt Shepard
kgriffey79, don’t feel like you should know. Heck, most people three times your age haven’t a clue about this either.
This will soon evolve into a big debate about MS but to give you a very simple answer (not because you are young but because it’s the only one I have) what was alleged is that MS was engaging in behavior which tended to restrict competition in the market. Yes, you as a consumer can get rid of IE and install Netscape but the idea is that most or many people won’t and that MS was forcing manufacturers to do things they really didn;t want to do. It is illegal to use your leverage with one product to sell another product if that results in decreased competition. But this is extremely copmplicated law so don’t feel bad if it seems complicated to you. Heck it is complicated even for the lawyers who argue the case.
Whenever I see anyone younger than about 24 post an uninformed question about current events, I feel the need to force them to read the news, rather than just answering. I guess I feel like I’m doing someone else’s homework for them. Sorry, but that’s what I’m going to do here.
Start with CNN. How about this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/books/02/26/microsoft.books/index.html
If that doesn’t do it, I’m sure you can find lots of other stuff out on the web.
Suffice it to say that your guesses are wide of the mark.
Good point Saltire. I feel exactly the same way about those over 24, only more so 
many questions asked here could be answered by a simple Net search. I try to be a bit more understanding with the younger crowd.
The lawsuit will be dropped, mainly because AOL, one of the major plantiffs, blindsided everyone and became the biggest bad company on Earth, in terms of scope. #1 in media, #1 ISP, #1 peer to peer distributor (with their acquiring Napster). That is way more power than Microsoft is being sued for.
Soon this may go to Great Debates. While it isn’t there yet, I can’t let this go unanswered.
Microsoft is not being sued for “power”. Microsoft was sued for “abuse of power”. There is a difference.
Much as I hate AOL, and much as I believe AOL to abuse its power, it has yet to abuse its power to the same extent MS has.
This may go to Great Debates, but let’s see if we can keep it GQ, first, OK?
In a vague attempt to provide a brief, objective answer…
The Federal Trade Commission opened an antitrust investigation of Microsoft in 1990. The investigation was dropped in 1993, but the Department of Justice announced that it was continuing to investigate Microsoft over possible antitrust violations. A merger with software house Intuit is blocked, and Microsoft announces a change in its contract procedures to mollify the authorities.
In May 1998 the DoJ and 19 states filed suit against Microsoft for violation of federal antitrust laws. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled in November 1999 that Microsoft had violated regulations by abusing its power in the PC market to maintain anticompetitive practices.
On the one hand Microsoft can be seen as attempting to use its power to dominate the internet browser market. By bundling IE with the dominant Windows operating system, consumers and manufacturers are forced to buy both products. This, it is alleged, unfairly edged out Netscape and other browser companies. Microsoft also unfairly restricted entry into the market for personal computer operating systems, it is claimed.
On the other hand, some say Microsoft’s success has been earned. The company offers good products at affordable prices and is constantly improving and upgrading its products. The company’s actions were fair and legal. By building its own browser into the Windows operating system, the consumer benefits from a better-integrated and more versatile computer.
[ adapted from this site ]
As someone who has followed the case, I agree wholeheartedly with mattk’s summary. I’d just like to add little explanation of the antitrust laws at issue in the case.
First, monopoly. Contrary to what you might think, having a monopoly is not illegal under the antitrust laws. What is illegal is using improper means to gain or retain a monopoly. For instance, for the past decade or so Microsoft has had a monopoly or near-monopoly on operating systems, with Windows holding an overwhelming majority of the market. No one is really objecting to this monopoly in operating systems because Microsoft by and large came about it fairly, that is to say they were out in front, estabilished the industry standard, and got the monpoly because consumers (for whatever reason, but without any undue influence) preferred their product to its competitors.
Second, market power. Where monopoly becomes a problem is where a company uses it’s monopoly position (or its market power, which is the competitive power it has from being a market leader, but not necessarily a monopolist) to keep others out of its market or to expand into other markets. What Microsoft is accused of doing is using its monopoly power in the operating system market to force consumers to use its browser, and therefore dominate the browser market as well. In his opinions, Judge Jackson found that Microsoft was using its operating system dominance to push around its customers that didn’t want to go along with Microsoft’s program. For instance, Judge Jackson found that original equipment manufacturers (like Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc.) would get different pricing if they promoted systems other than Windows and IE.
Third, tying. It is not a violation of antrust laws for a company (even a monopolist) to offer a product that through expanded functionality competes or dominates in another market. What is illegal, however, is to take two unconnected products, tie them together and use market power in the first to dominate the market for the second. In the lawsuit, Microsoft contends that its browser is not a separate product, but merely an expansion of the features of its Windows operating system. The Government contends that IE is a separate product that is merely “bolted onto” the operating system. Judge Jackson found them to be separate products, improperly tied together. However, there was an earlier Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Microsoft (on a different set of facts) which concluded (on the facts presented at that time) that Windows and IE were not simply different products bolted together. This will likely be an important issue in the appeal.