The Anti-Trust Case Against Microsoft :: Business Technology

The Anti-Trust Case Against MicrosoftSince 1990, a battle has raged in United States courts between the United States organisation and the Microsoft corp out of Redmond, Washington, fliped by Bill Gates. What is at stake is money. The federal government maintains that Microsofts monopolistic practices are harmful to United States citizens, creating higher prices and potentially downgrading parcel quality, and should therefore be stopped, while Microsoft and its supporters claim that they are not gaolbreak any laws, and are just doing good business. Microsofts antitrust problems began for them in the primeval months of 1990(Check 1), when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating them for possible violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts,(Maldoom 1) which are designed to stop the formation of monopolies. The investigation continued on for the abutting three years without resolve, until Novell, maker of DR-DOS, a competitor of Microsofts MS-DOS, filed a sick ness with the Competition Directorate of the European Commission in June of 1993. (Maldoom 1) Doing this stalled the investigations even more, until in the long run in August of 1993, (Check 1)the Federal Trade Commission decided to trade the case over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice moved quickly, with Anne K. Bingaman, head of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, leading the way.(Check 1) The case was finally ended on July 15, 1994, with Microsoft signing a consent settlement.(Check 1) The settlement focused on Microsofts marketing practices with computer manufacturers. Up until now, Microsoft would deal out MS-DOS and Microsofts other operating(a)(a) trunks to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) at a 60% discount if that OEM agreed to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every single computer that they sold (Check 2) regardless if it had a Microsoft operating system installed on it or not. After the settlement, Microsoft would be forced to sell their ope rating systems according to the number of computers shipped with a Microsoft operating system installed, and not for computers that ran other operating systems. (Check 2) Another practice that the Justice Department accuse Microsoft of was that Microsoft would specify a minimum number of minimum number of operating systems that the retailer had to buy, thus eliminating any chance for another operating system vender to get their system installed until the retailer had installed all of the Microsoft operating systems that it had installed.(Maldoom 2) In addition to specifying a minimum number of operating systems that a vendor had to buy, Microsoft also would sign contracts with the vendors for long periods of time