While the Federal Department of Justice and most of its competitors argue that Microsoft is a greedy, bullying company, lead by a monopolist whose tactics make former Robber Barons during the Gilded Age look polite, others argue that Microsoft and its CEO co-founder William H. Gates, III, represent the most successful corporation and entrepreneur of the millenium. Due to new technologies and the transformation from the industrial age to the information age enabled Gates and Microsoft Corporation to surpass all other entrepreneurial efforts of the 20th century:
Only one man has directed a company to publicly traded worth of about half a trillion dollars—when compares to nations, his company boasts the ninth largest economy in the world. At 44, he may be the richest man in history, worth approximately $77 billion. He’s also created more millionaires than anyone in the history of business.
Despite such success, the year 2000 was a woeful one for the wundercompany. Not only did the company’s stock plummet, but Federal Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft Corp represent a monopoly and should be split into two separate entities (Taft 80). Seven judges are currently hearing Microsoft’s appeal of the ruling which will effectively split the company in two if Microsoft loses. Yet, many argue that while Microsoft may represent monopolistic power, its tactics pass the main test of antitrust violation – they do not cost the consumer. They do not cost the consumer because of limited competition because the product Microsoft’s competitors allege make them a monopoly, the browser ties to Windows operating systems, is given to consumers and vendors for free. This analysis will discuss the antitrust suit in an argument that demonstrates why Microsoft is not in violation of antitrust laws and should, therefore, win on appeal.
The ruling of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson charges Microsoft Corp. to be in vi...