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 market (Economides, 2001).

I believe that Microsoft was trying to gain monopoly power in the industry. However, under the Sherman Act, firms are only forbidden from gaining monopoly power by "improper means." In the case of operating systems, Microsoft was able to succeed on the strength of its product. The browser issue is more complex, and it appears that the practice of bundling Internet Explorer discouraged consumers from buying Netscape Navigator. Although the wording of the Sherman...

The reason the company wanted to gain a monopoly is because the pricing power under a monopoly is better than under conditions of competition. Indeed, the DoJ was able to force Microsoft to unbundle its browser from Windows, and today the browser market is much more free. With competition limited to a handful of browsers, however, consumers no longer have to pay for a browser at all, which is precisely the opposite of what Microsoft had wanted to accomplish. The company still has a dominant market share in operating systems and maintains its ability to earn high rents for Windows.
Monopolies are not…