Microsoft Is a Company That Was Found

Microsoft is a company that was found to be in violation of antitrust laws by both the U.S. Justice Department and the European Commissions. The reason behind such a finding, is that Microsoft acted in a manner that was found to be overly aggressive in regards to its operating systems and software. As the Weil and McMillan article wrote that it was "alleged that Microsoft harmed Netscape's browser business through anticompetitive practices related to the Windows operating system" (Weil, McMillan, 2003) while the United States vs.

Microsoft article went even further by stating "critics contend that Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and lying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software and used misrepresentative marketing tactics" (United States, 2002, 2006).

It is this author's belief that it does not matter if a company is 'capitalistic' or not, most companies would not have acted in the manner that Microsoft did, and that by doing so, Microsoft suffered far more damage than they would have if they had just been open from the beginning. There is no such thing as a capitalistic company that 'needs to act aggressively in order to excel'. There is no truth in that statement in the first place. Defining a 'capitalistic' company vs.

A 'non-capitalistic' company is a matter that only academia can come up with. All companies are capitalistic, even the ones that tout themselves as something entirely different. If they are not capitalistic, then they are only social programs set up to masquerade as companies. That does not mean that companies have to "act aggressively in order to excel." In fact, Microsoft was acting aggressively, more so (I believe) than other companies would have in that same type of scenario.

Taking a heavy-handed approach such as the one used by Microsoft oftentimes backfires, as it did in this case as well. The company settled with Netscape for $750 million, plus it agreed to work with AOL/Netscape on future projects and endeavors. Since Microsoft settled the lawsuit and agreed to the stipulations as required by both the U.S.

Department of Justice, the European Commissions, and the other companies involved in the lawsuit, one can only surmise that Microsoft was either in the wrong in what it did, or it did not wish to continue to spend money to defend its actions. The author believes that Microsoft (by settling the claim) was admitting that its actions were 'over the top' and that it was wrong in taking those actions. One recent study determined that "the management of abnormal situations becomes more important everyday" (Aguilar, Prato, Bravo, Rivas, 2009, p.

406) and this was certainly a matter that could have been handled in a much more open manner. The abnormal situation was that Microsoft acted in the manner that it did to begin with. Most companies (capitalistic or not) would likely not have taken the same steps as Microsoft did, and because of this abnormality, Microsoft was first sued, and then found guilty of being in violation of certain laws. This is not normal behavior, and should have been handled in.