¶ … antitrust claims faced Microsoft corporation Who to Trust: Analysis of United States vs. Microsoft

On May 18, 1998, The United States vs. Microsoft trial began. The computer networking and software company, Microsoft, was being charged with numerous allegations, the most salient of which included monopolizing the market for computer operating systems and engaging in illicit practices that were detrimental to competition. The company was also charged with trying to create a monopoly for the internet browser market, since the usage of multiple browsers would allow for competition from alternative operating systems. Other points of anti-competitive charges that Microsoft faced included the bundling of its browser, Internet Explorer, with all Windows Operating systems (another Microsoft product), that it engaged in exclusive contracts with original equipment manufacturers for computers and with internet service providers.

There is still a lingering sense of ambiguity that surrounds many of these allegations that still exists two decades removed from the time the United States Department of Justice initially began interested in Microsoft. The vast majority of the charges brought against the conglomeration were based on the Sherman Act of 1890 (Economides, 2001) . The multi-faceted nature of many of the allegations brought against the company largely prevents decisions from being formed in a completely unequivocal fashion. However, it should be noted that the issue of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was a central component upon which the charges of monopoly (which...

From a pure business perspective, it is both rational and highly advantageous for Microsoft to include its own internet browser with its operating system. Furthermore, from an initial appraisal of this situation, it does not seem to violate any sort of trust laws due to the fact that the simple inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows does not preclude other browsers from being purchased, downloaded, and utilized on any windows-based personal computer. Instead, Microsoft's inclusion of this product with its operating system seemed a natural marketing strategy that obviously presented a degree of ubiquity and numerous boons that made competitors' complaints, (such as it took too long for their own browsers to be downloaded and utilized, or that the additional step of making a separate attempt to purchase another browser when one was already provided on a computer was too much of a hassle for customers) seem petty.
However, the more research one does into the facts of this particular case, the less lucid such facts and assertions appear to be. One of the primary queries that helped to validate the complains of internet browser competitors was whether or not the computing conglomerate (Microsoft) had actually modified its application programming interfaces to present a competitive advantage for its browser over others (Page & Lopatka, 2009). This particular question is fairly integral to the forming of whether or not Microsoft validated competition and trust laws in its operations. Unfortunately, the answer to this question…