Microsoft Antitrust Case

There has been a lot of debate recently near Bill Gates within the packet package industry. This debate has occurred because Windows is on the majority of personal desktops, which is considered a monopoly in the constitution. The problem with having a monopoly is that any(prenominal) software that is written by any company must guide with the Windows operating system.That means that all companies must consult with Microsoft before making software. It also means that Microsoft rump effectively destroy a company by ref utilize to use their software. Or, Microsoft can create their own products that fence with separate companies, and they can include it with the Windows operating system for free. Since free products that work well with the operating system (and which is conveniently already there) will be chosen over alternatives, Microsoft can severely harm their competitors with this strategy.The lawsuits against Microsoft verbalize that the company was using this power to de stroy distinguishable companies and to boost their own products.Q2) In this country, monopolies are frowned upon. term this is a capitalist society that allows free market competition, it is assumed that all companies should have an equal bechance to participate in the market and to take a crap profits. This was especially true in the time of the anti-trust laws, when the Clinton administration was in office, an administration that was against big blood as a rule. The verdict handed down was decidedly harsh, craft Microsoft a thug in its business dealings with some other companies.These issues do exist in other countries as well. In fact, some countries will non allow Microsoft to sell their products any more(prenominal) because of the proprietary software and operating systems that they use. Countries do not requirement products that take over the market entirely, they want competition from different products, the likes of the U.S. does.Q3) Many people felt that Microsof t was not being at all ethical in the way they were dealing with this issue. In being freely competitive, companies should do the best they can to promote their products and larn the favor of the consumers, but they should not go so far as to make it impossible for other companies to compete.There are other business ethics, as well. Microsoft should not be forcing their competitors, or those who support their business (the software companies) to write their products or conduct business in any particular way. However, by paternity an operating system that requires software to be produced in specific ways, they are basically forcing companies to do things their way, or to lose the business of almost everyone in America who owns a PC. Since companies obviously do not want to go under, they are forced to play the game Microsofts way.Another issue is that if Microsoft doesnt like the product a company comes up with, they can force the product off the market by offering their own versio n of it, which comes bundled with their operating system. For sheer convenience alone, Microsoft can win that meshing every time. This is unethical because Microsoft only has to decide that they dont like a product, and they can simply make it disappear.Legally, the U.S. government does not allow monopolies to appear in the business world, for precisely the above reasons. It allows oligopolies (where a few major companies control the market share relatively equally), but monopolies make it too difficult for sassy businesses to break into the system. Also, in Microsofts case, it was not only controlling its own section of the industry, but very the entire industry. The cases judge considered this type of behavior predatory.Q4) Microsoft is, of course, the primary player in this case. It is using its power as the leader in the industry to try to remain the leader, and to control even more of the industry. Meanwhile, most other software companies, including Novell, Netscape, and PC manufacturer Gateway, are against Microsoft. They are hard to destroy Microsofts monopoly in order to create opportunity for themselves. Of course, if they were in Microsofts position, they would do no differently.All software companies are seeking to lead the industry and have a monopoly, because that is the primary way to make money. Because these software companies cannot do this while Microsoft is in the way, they are calling for Microsofts destruction or separation into small companies so that they can have a shot at the big top.The government is also trying to use its power to destroy Microsoft, despite the fact that the Clinton administration has approved more large mergers than any previous administration. They are making an example of Microsoft because a lot of people are upset well-nigh it. This occurred just before an election year, so they would be attempting to garner political power from this move (as we know, it did not work, and the Democrats lost the White House i n 2000).SourceMcLaughlin, Martin (1999). Behind the Microsoft antitrust case computer giants battle for market and profits. World Socialist Website. Accessed December 7, 2007. Website http//www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/micr-n11.shtml