Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world. It has been accused of a variety of predatory pricing and distribution practices in its effort to continue to dominate the market for operating software. In the mid-1990s, Microsoft was charged with antitrust violations. As part of a consent decree intended to avoid a trial, Microsoft agreed to a series of steps designed to make it easier for personal computer manufacturers and others to select and install operating system software produced by companies other than Microsoft.
There has been a significant amount of discussion and debate about whether the company that Bill Gates founded and manages obeyed the original consent decree. Competitors argue that Microsoft has not fulfilled its obligations, and more importantly that Microsoft is engaged in a continuing pattern of unethical and illegal practices intended to maintain Microsoft's dominant position in the software industry. Some allege that Microsoft has violated state and federal antitrust laws in order to maintain its market share. Bill Gates, as founder and CEO of Microsoft, has been linked in the media to these illegal activities.
There is a fundamental concept or principle at work in the Microsoft antitrust case. That concept is associated with the idea of free enterprise. Essentially, people who support Microsoft would support these arguments:
* Microsoft does not need to squeeze out its competition with illegal activities. It enjoys what economists refer to as a natural monopoly
* Microsoft's activities have not increased the cost of operating systems to PC manufacturers or to end-users, nor have they reduced the quality of products, nor has Microsoft stifled innovation.
* Microsoft's dominant market share is the result of manufacturing a high quality, low cost product.
* Demand for the products Microsoft sells has far more to do with its 90% plus market share than greed.
If some o...