Microsoft Monopoly
Why was Microsoft investigated for antitrust behavior?
In the eyes of some legal analysts, Microsoft was investigated and taken to court over antitrust allegations because of the belief that it would not live up to its own word about what it intended (McKenzie and Shughart, 1998). There was little doubt about the fact that by the mid- to late-1990s Microsoft had virtual control over the operating system (Windows) that it had created to operate the vast majority of personal computers, and that it was trying to control how it packaged its favored Internet access portal (Internet Explorer, IE). Even Microsoft knew that it had a privileged position. That was why it agreed in 1995 to a consent agreement that had two basic provisions. One being that Microsoft would not require that buyers of its Windows operating system to separately purchase and install other stand-along components (which presumably meant independent versions of Internet access programs like IE). Under a second condition, however, the company could still sell "integrated" (or bundled) components that, in this case, would make Windows and IE two parts of a single package. To the Justice Department at that time, selling an integrated package was acceptable; exercising virtual access through other methods like requiring independent purchases, on the other hand, would result in a form of "imperfect competition" and allow Microsoft to be a "price maker" and market controller -- or basically a monopoly demanding antitrust enforcement.
The debate since that time has centered on whether Microsoft live up to its word. According to many experts, Microsoft did not; in fact, it went out of its way to find methods of getting around the issue to its own advantage. As McKenzie and Shughard (1998) set up the dispute at the time:
But the question remained: Was Microsoft trying to gain monopolistic power?
The answer appears to be found in the end results of the legal actions. Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic tendencies by the U.S. courts (McKenzie and Shughart, 1998), and later it would submit to stopping some of the very same practices in Europe, primarily so it would no longer…
Microsoft Monopoly Microsoft was investigated for an antitrust behavior because it was engaged in an activity that was believed to be unlawful according to the U.S. Laws. The U.S. market does not allow monopoly and it is unlawful to engage in monopolistic activities that tend to harm the competitors in the same market. The market is guided on the principles of free and open market for all where there is fair
Microsoft Monopoly Assessment of Microsoft's Monopoly Microsoft has for decades engaged in commercial activities both with its direct enterprise customers and its many distribution channel partners that could be considered monopolistic. While Microsoft has long asserted it is one of the most efficient competitors there are in an oligopolistically-based market of enterprise and consumer software, in reality its strategies and tactics show a pattern of deliberate monopolistic behavior (Information Management, 2009). Microsoft
Microsoft Monopoly Since feudalism gave way to capitalism and the Industrial Revolution sparked a number of economic ideas, scholars have debated the idea of competition within the market. In most any economic system, competition forms the basis of the market economy. As well, within economic systems, there may be ethical and unethical practices and arrangements. Most of the unethical practices, after a time, become illegal and are discouraged, but others become
It is also worth noting that as time moves forward there is less of a downward sloping demand curve in software. This means that the demand for browsers is less likely to decline as price increases over time, as more people go online and the technology becomes ubiquitous. If there was a downward sloping demand curve, the monopoly firm would be prevented from increasing prices infinitely because it would
In many ways, Microsoft's point that it was a natural monopoly because of its browser and operating system being the most efficient and cost-effective solution for the market is well taken. Because of the demand for their system, there was a huge economy of scale, making PCs far less expensive. In addition, many monopolies are deadweight loss to society by taking more than giving -- Microsoft's investment and research/development continue
MSFT Monopoly The Microsoft antitrust case was based around three premises -- that Microsoft monopolized the market for operating systems, that it monopolized the market for browsers and that it bundled its browser and operating system in order to use its market power in operating systems to control the market for browsers. The company was also accused of having illegal agreements with channel partners to keep Netscape's browser out of the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now