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...

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…