There appear to be many who feel that using Microsoft and ethics in the same phrase represents an oxymoron. Certainly the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose recent ruling that Microsoft violates antitrust laws and must be split into two companies, believes as much. However, others argue that Microsoft's practices are entirely ethical and their clout and dominance are the result of superior products and market ability. The decision of Microsoft to tie a web browser to its Windows operating system won it scrutiny and lawsuits that have led to the recent DOJ ruling to breakup the company. Microsoft has been accused by competitors or predatory, monopolistic, take-no-prisoners strategies that unfairly hamper competitors and offer consumers fewer choices. Microsoft, on the other hand, argues that is had done nothing unethical in building company sales from $16,000 in 1975 to $20 billion annually today (Stout 2). In fact, Microsoft founder Bill Gates called the DOJ’s action “Draconian, unwarranted and bad for consumers, the high-tech industry and our economy. The judge’s ruling is an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the software marketplace, a marketplace that has been an engine of economic growth for America” (Brinkley 2).
The DOJ and Microsoft competitors feel differently. They argue that by tying an operating system and browser together, Microsoft has unfairly stunted the competition and impedes consumer choice and quality. The judge’s decision was supported by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who commented that the ruling will “have a profound impact, not only by promoting competition in the software industry, but also by reaffirming the importance of antitrust law enforcement in the 21st century” (Brinkley 3). Yet, there is little evidence that Microsoft has acted unethically. What they did was correctly anticipate the future needs of computer users and the impact of the Internet on operating system...