ast, accused of unfair competitive practices and aggressively coercive tactics, during trial testimony Bill Gates, under oath, maintained he did not know the ômeaningö of the word ôcompeteö (Wahl, 2001, 103).
This analysis will review the Microsoft antitrust case that resulted in the company being charged with two violations of maintaining a monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Pertinent legislation pertaining to monopolies will be addressed. A review of the case against Microsoft will then be provided, including pertinent charges and outcomes related to monopolistic practices. Application of economic theories that are applicable to the Microsoft antitrust case will then be reviewed. An analysis will then follow that offers different perspectives on whether or not the charges, findings, and consequences of the Microsoft case are valid with respect to monopoly theory and legislation. A conclusion will address the likely impact of the outcome of the case against Microsoft on the companyÆs future growth, in addition to illuminating some current challenges faced by the company due to ancillary lawsuits related to its monopolistic practices and trends in the industry.
Antitrust Legislation Pertinent to Monopolies
In the Microsoft case, Judge Jackson found Microsoft guilty of violating both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was broadly penned so that its reach included almost any kind of anti-competitive activities. Section 1 originally maintained that any contract prohibiting trade was prohibited. The vague and broad nature of the act led to a refusal in the courts to enforce the law because it basically made any kind of contract illegal. In order to correct this limitation, the Clayton Act was passed in 1914 in order to specify which kinds of business practices unfairly limit trade and stifle competition.
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 remains the foundation...