Ending nearly a decade-long investigation into Microsoft’s business practices, a federal judge recently stated in harsh words that without doubt Microsoft’s business and its business practices represent a monopoly, “The Microsoft of Judge Jackson’s narrative is a deep-pocketed bully that uses ‘its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm’ companies that presume to compete with it. And it presents Gates as a law-flouting monopolist who makes a ‘threat’ to one rival considering getting into the software market and ‘berates’ and then ‘retaliates’ against an executive from another company who dares to criticize Windows” (Cohen 1). This analysis will explore two essential elements regarding the legal problems of Microsoft, both of which have proponents and opponents. The first is whether or not by practice and in nature, Microsoft represents a monopoly, and the second is determining whether labeling them one and attempting to breakup the organization would be a plus or a minus for consumers.
Antitrust suits are brought against companies that are thought to have a monopoly in an industry because “the company has such dominance in its industry that it has the power to dictate prices and limit competition” (Shiver and Helm 6). The Justice Department has been investigating the business practices of Microsoft and CEO Bill Gates since 1993, after the Federal Trade Commission had secretly investigated alleged allegation of collusion between the software giant and International Business Machines for two years. One year later the company was forced to sign a consent decree that it could not force those computer manufacturers who license its Windows operating system to also license other software. After bundling its Internet Browser software for free with Windows, companies like Netscape charged unlawful business practices were being carried out by Microsoft.
The chief accusations against Micros...