California sues Microsoft for antitrust...again

TalkBack 19 of 59:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Google is your friend.

Don't you know how to search Google? Simply plug in "Clayton Act", "Sherman Act", and Microsoft. You'll have much factual data. Hopefully after reading some summaries of the law, and comparing it to the transcripts and summaries of the Microsoft/DOJ case; you'll see exactly of what Microsoft was accused and convicted. If you want general antitrust information, just leave off Microsoft from your search. Add "California" if you want to research the relevant State laws. EU and Japan also have different laws, but the EU laws are not to my search translated into English (at least online). Japan's laws are, of course, in Japanese.

Specifically, though, in the USA: what Microsoft did to be called a monopolist was to achieve a massive marketshare. However, a massive marketshare is not a crime! What one does to obtain or maintain massive marketshare can be.

What is a crime are violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, the Robinson Act, or various State Acts. Briefly, the Sherman Act forbids "price fixing, bid rigging, and customer and territorial allocation agreements". The Clayton Act adds civil torts and "prohibits corporate and other mergers - and the acquisition of stock or assets - of competing companies, where the effect of such action may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Anticompetitive tying and exclusive dealing contracts are also prohibited, as are certain interlocking directorates."[a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title7/title7.htm"]title 7 resource manual[/a]. Microsoft was found guilty of tying, exclusive contracts, and there were intimations of an attempt to form a territorial allocation agreement.

The interpretation of these laws must also be factored into your consideration of facts. You must also research the findings in other antitrust cases. Read the actual court documents. AT&T, United Shoe Machinery, Standard Oil and of course Microsoft are some of the most important Federal cases. Start Goggling and reading.

The other companies you mention were monopolies of their day, but they were not predatory monopolists. Evidence? When competition entered their markets, they fought hard, but ceded marketshare to competition. Atari ceded marketshare to Commodore and Coleco.Cisco has ceded marketshare to Juniper and Extreme Networks. This is a sign of healthy competition. Antitrust law doesn't enter into a healthy market.

Microsoft is being carefully watched by the courts and by numerous State AGs and perhaps will someday learn to behave. Meanwhile, they will be hit from every angle for their past misdeeds. Microsoft might have been better served to be broken apart.

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 08/28/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now