Microsoft antitrust case ethics

In , the US Department of Justice DOJ ruled that Microsoft be split into two smaller companies to prevent it from indulging in anti competitive practices. However, in June , the US Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, but said that Microsoft did have a monopoly 3 in the market and had violated US antitrust laws.

Refer Exhibit I for US antitrust policy. A final verdict on the case was expected by October Refer Exhibit II for the chronology of events in the case.

In October , the DOJ began antitrust investigations to determine whether Microsoft was violating a consent decree 4 by compelling PC makers to ship its Internet browser free with Windows Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division, remarked, "This kind of product-forcing is an abuse of monopoly power--and we will seek to put an end to it.

The main causes that lead to monopoly are: ownership of strategic raw materials, or exclusive knowledge of production techniques; patent rights for a product or for a production process and government licensing or the imposition of foreign trade barriers to exclude foreign competitors. Sometimes existing firms adopt a pricing policy that prevents the entry of new players.

It is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. Nor is it a primary information source. In June , the US District Court gave its ruling that Microsoft had violated the US antitrust laws by abusing its monopoly power in computer operating systems. Judge Jackson ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly, basing his conclusion on three factors: Microsoft's share of the market for operating systems was extremely large and stable; a high entry barrier protected Microsoft's dominant market share and; because of the high entry barrier, Microsoft's customers lacked a commercially viable alternative to Windows In September , the Supreme Court declined to consider the government's bid to break up Microsoft as a remedy for uncompetitive practices and chose to send the case to the lower court.

In February , in response to Microsoft's appeal against Jackson's ruling, the appeals court heard arguments for two days, allowing only about 30 minutes for oral arguments One option could be to force Microsoft to open its source code for the Windows operating system-to competitors