Thanks -- Kilo-Lima There are plenty of monopolies everywhere. The Beatles is a monopoly on their songs which is perfectly legal. The illegal for them would be to try to prevent anyone else to sing, or start including, for example, a candy, with every Beatles CD they sell which would be using music monopoly status to harm candy manufactures.
Eisenach and Thomas M. Have the antitrust laws outlived their usefulness? Should they be enforced in the high-tech sector of the economy? Is Microsoft a good candidate for such enforcement? Most importantly, if Microsoft has violated the law, what can or should be done about it?
In our view, it is quite clear that Microsoft has violated the law and harmed consumers. Further, we believe that one type of remedy -- a "competitive" structural remedy that would create four companies from the current one and so restore competition to the market for operating systems -- is clearly preferable to other alternatives.
In this paper, we summarize the factual evidence and legal analysis that lead us to conclude a remedy is desirable, and describe briefly the remedy we have concluded would best serve consumers. While we believe these issues are all worthy of debate and discussion, such discussion can only be constructive if it acknowledges the voluminous factual and legal record that has already been established during the course of the trial.
Rather than argue the facts, or the law, they have cast aspersions on the ideological leanings too liberal? For those who might be inclined to accept such arguments, it is important to remember that the Microsoft case has been prosecuted by an Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Joel Klein, who was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of -- with all 12 of those opposing his nomination being liberal Democrats concerned that he would be too "pro-market" in his approach.
Judge Jackson bases this conclusion on three factors: Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power.
Since Microsoft has been established to have market power, the next question is whether Microsoft actually engaged in such behaviors. Judge Jackson finds that it did. In response to the Netscape threat, Microsoft undertook a broad array of anticompetitive practices to increase the market share of its Internet Explorer.
Instead, Jackson identifies a broad pattern of activities for which Microsoft advanced no credible efficiency rationale, but which can easily be understood as being designed to harm competition. For example, Judge Jackson found that Microsoft was able to use its Windows license as leverage in disputes with original equipment manufacturers OEMssuch as Compaq, over which browser would be featured on their products.
Microsoft sent Compaq a letter. Gates told Grove that he had a fundamental problem with Intel using revenues from its microprocessor business to fund the development and distribution of free platform level software. Similarly, Microsoft attempted to use the leverage provided by the Windows monopoly to persuade IBM to stop competing in the market for applications software.
When IBM refused to abate the promotion of those of its own products that competed with Windows and Office, Microsoft punished the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for Windows 95, and the withholding of technical and marketing support.
In addition to these examples, the Findings of Fact also establish that Microsoft threatened or otherwise engaged in anticompetitive conduct on numerous other occasions, involving such major companies as Apple, AOL, Intuit, Real Networks and Sun Microsystems.
Many of these actions have harmed consumers in ways that are immediate and easily discernible. They have also caused less direct, but nevertheless serious and far-reaching, consumer harm by distorting competition.
This is precisely the sort of consumer harm the antitrust laws seek to mitigate. Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of section 2.
Microsoft also violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. In other words, Judge Jackson found Microsoft guilty of monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, both because it used illegal means to maintain its operating system monopoly and because it used illegal means to attempt to establish a monopoly in the market for Web browsers.At the outset, two issues in the public debate over Microsoft’s supposed monopoly status must be distinguished.
First is the technical legal issue of whether Microsoft violated its consent agreement with the Justice Department, along with the more general question of whether .
When analysing a monopoly, the key question is whether it is a Contestable monopoly (not preventing other firms from entering the market), or a harmful monopoly (which means, for example: lobbies for new barriers to entry, uses monopoly status in one area to become a monopoly in another etc).
The Microsoft Antitrust Case. This case is intended as a teaching tool. It presents essential aspects of the discussion of remedies, the reader is referred to Economides (). 1. Facts. Microsoft is a large diversified computer software manufacturer with one of the Microsoft has a monopoly in this market “where it enjoys a large.
It has been long discussion whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not? Among other charges Microsoft was charged with "monopolizing the computer operating system market, integrating the Internet Explorer web browser into the operating system in an attempt to eliminate competition from Netscape, and using its market power to form anticompetitive.
exceed marginal cost and result in fewer copies sold of the Windows operating system and Office application than the efficient quantities.
Compare the graph in this section with the graph in Figure (b). Post your discussion explaining and evaluating why a monopoly is inefficient and whether a monopoly is fair based on the two (2) views, 96%(23). Jan 02, · Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly" A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a monopoly in PC operating systems in an unusually decisive statement that could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.