This paper examines the antitrust claims brought against Microsoft by the U.S. government, focusing on allegations of monopolistic conduct in the operating systems market. It reviews the government's arguments under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, including charges related to exclusive contracts, the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows 98, attempts to partition markets with competitors, and efforts to undermine Sun Microsystems' Java programming language. The paper also discusses the legal standards for tying arrangements and evaluates the appellate court's rulings. The author ultimately argues that Microsoft's conduct reflected aggressive but legitimate competitive strategy rather than unlawful anticompetitive behavior.
Microsoft's numerous opponents believed that the company had an objective to gain power over all delivery channels of information, thereby controlling the substance of what people could access. According to Sun Microsystems, by possessing control over access to the Internet and the electronic marketplace, Microsoft held the authority to exercise voracious and exclusive power over the means by which people entered the Internet and everything it represented (International Directory of Company Histories, 2004).
The U.S. government agreed with this line of thinking and attempted to prove an extensive pattern of anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. The government's case represented a collection of issues, including: that Microsoft had a domination of the marketplace for operating systems; that the corporation used that monopoly to prevent other businesses from selling competitors' goods, especially Netscape's Internet browser; that it was unlawful for Microsoft to bundle its own browser into the Windows 98 operating system as a means of preventing consumers from purchasing Netscape's product; that the corporation attempted to partition markets with competitors; that Microsoft tried to undermine the Java programming language, distributed by Sun Microsystems, which it viewed as a threat to Windows; and that Microsoft's business practices were harmful to consumers.
The charges were brought under intense media scrutiny, with all parties acknowledging that the stakes were very high. If Microsoft prevailed, its brand of tremendously aggressive capitalism would receive legal approval. If the company lost, however, it could be required to license the source code for Windows to competitors — effectively destroying its monopoly — or it might be broken up into smaller units, relinquishing its control over the market (International Directory of Company Histories, 2004).
The Sherman Antitrust Act makes illegal every contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce. The government's claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act alleged that Microsoft had entered into exclusive contracts with various parties and had tied Internet Explorer to Windows. The government later abandoned its Section 1 claims following an unfavorable ruling at the appellate court level. The core of the government's exclusive contracts argument was that Microsoft had restricted the distribution of Netscape's competing Web browser. This argument was unproductive at the district court level, however, since Netscape continued to grow throughout the late 1990s (Butts, 2010).
"Legal tying doctrine applied to browser bundling dispute"
The government's claims were not entirely valid. Microsoft was merely being aggressive in the operating system market. Being aggressive — and often being first to market with a product — can frequently be the difference between a business succeeding or failing. Understanding competitive strategy in technology markets requires recognizing that dominant firms often innovate and integrate rapidly, which is not inherently unlawful. In this case, Microsoft understood what it was doing and, as a result, achieved a level of success beyond what anyone had anticipated.
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.