| The Findings of Fact supported the government’s position on Microsoft’s exclusionary practices and Internet development. The paper stated that Microsoft pressured Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and many other companies not to develop operating system software. Through wielding power that comes from having the only OS in the market, Microsoft was able to convince companies to add software to Microsoft’s established platform. Microsoft also withheld important blue prints that they claimed would be made available to companies they wanted to keep out of the OS market. Jackson also found that, in the Internet market, Microsoft felt power going to other companies so they developed the Internet Explorer and bundled it with Microsoft windows. In this way, consumers are getting something that did not necessarily want, without having a choice. Companies who distribute computers, such as Dell and Gateway would not want to install Netscape in addition to Internet Explorer, which was already installed with Windows because it would create confusion, which would raise customer support costs. Thus, Microsoft was at least partially successful in getting their Internet Explorer to a wide variety of consumers and in excluding Netscape from getting a fair share of the market place. Judge Jackson’s conclusion was essentially agreeing with the government’s main case. Microsoft deprived consumers of software innovation because they did not work out with Microsoft’s own interests. Microsoft eliminated competition by using its market power and hurt consumers in the process. Jackson also found that Microsoft forced firms to agree to arrangements that only Microsoft could offer, and the companies could not refuse. The only of Microsoft’s arguments that Judge Jackson agreed with was that the Internet browser “contributed to the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefiting consumers”(1999). He agreed that Microsoft is at least partially responsible for the boom in the Internet because they allowed everyone with Windows and a modem to access the Internet, and they made Netscape reduce their price to zero. Their Windows software also made computers more user-friendly and helped increase the amount of people who can access the internet. In the end, the Supreme Court found Microsoft to be a monopoly, and imposed punishment. The somewhat heavy punishment included several parts. First, Microsoft was split into two separate companies. While one will be allowed to sell the operating system, Windows, the other will be allowed to sell the Microsoft application software, such as Microsoft Office and Windows Explorer. These two companies will not be allowed to merge for a full ten years. In addition to this punishment, the courts put business restrictions on both new companies for the next three and a half years, so that their competitors can catch up. The government succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court judges and according to an online poll, a majority of the public that Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft’s claim that they are not a monopoly has been constantly defeated so they have done the smart thing and claimed that the software industry cannot have the same laws of antitrust applying to other companies. Microsoft’s lawyers stated that “computer software, a fast-changing, dynamic, fiercely competitive industry, does indeed have distinctive characteristics and the courts should tread carefully”(2000). Although the Supreme court has found that Microsoft did indeed wield, by classic definition, monopolistic power and attempted to corner the market, and it is hard to argue that they did not, the old monopoly laws may not apply to the software industry. In the software industry, having the best product may create a natural monopoly. This is now Microsoft’s main case, and thus should be looked at carefully to decide whether Microsoft should indeed face punishment. |