Us sues microsoft

Findings of fact: Microsoft is a monopoly that hurts competition and consumers. As expected, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has found Microsoft to have monopoly power in the computer operating system market.

In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. Bill Gates is co-founder, technology advisor and board member of Microsoft. He served as chairman of the board until Feb. Gates continues to serve on Microsoft's board of directors and as an advisor on key development projects. Microsoft, A Monopoly No More. Apparently, justice will try to be swift now that Federal District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has declared that Microsoft maintained a monopoly in personal computer operating systems by anticompetitive means.

The suit was brought following the browser wars that led to the collapse of Microsoft's top competitor, Netscape, which occurred when Microsoft began giving away its browser software for free. Why did the US government sue Microsoft? Category: business and finance government business.

The suit began on May 18, , with the U. Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of twenty U. Is Apple a monopoly? Is Google a monopoly? Does Bill Gates use Apple? Who owns Microsoft now? Is Microsoft a monopoly ? Is Facebook a monopoly?

Read on to learn more about the case and the ruling that followed. Microsoft MSFT was one of the world's most successful software companies in the s. The company's rising presence in the personal computing market raised alarm bells with federal authorities. The Federal Trade Commission FTC launched an investigation in the early s to determine whether Microsoft was trying to create a monopoly. Although that investigation was closed, the Department of Justice DoJ picked it up.

On May 18, , the DoJ and the attorneys general of 20 different states filed antitrust charges against Microsoft to determine whether the company's bundling of additional programs into its operating system constituted monopolistic actions. The suit was brought following the browser wars that led to the collapse of Microsoft's top competitor, Netscape, which occurred when Microsoft began giving away its browser software for free.

Charges were brought against Microsoft to determine whether its bundling of additional programs into its operating system constituted monopolistic actions. The government case accused Microsoft of making it difficult for consumers to install competing software on computers operated by Windows.

If Microsoft was found to have made it unreasonably difficult for consumers to uninstall Internet Explorer and use a competing browser, the company's practices would be deemed anti-competitive.

The case meandered along with accusations of misleading statements and a variety of courtroom distractions. A group of economists even published a full-page open letter to President Bill Clinton in major newspapers in support of Microsoft stating that antitrust laws hurt consumers as well as the success of domestic firms in global competition.

They urged authorities to drop protectionism fueled by antitrust laws. The trial didn't necessarily run very smoothly. In fact, the DOJ's case against Microsoft was plagued with problems. First, there were questions about whether charges should have been brought against Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft claimed that its competitors were jealous of its success. Meanwhile, those who supported Microsoft proposed that if the company was to be considered a monopoly, it was, at best, a noncoercive one.

They argued that even with options like Unix, Linux, and Macintosh, consumers demonstrated a preference for the convenience of Microsoft's Windows product on their computers. Windows may not have been the superior product, but it could run on a Toshiba laptop or on a number of clones. The ease of its installation and its other bundled software allowed it to become the norm. Despite the creative editing of video, facts, and emails, Microsoft lost the case.

The presiding judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, ruled that Microsoft violated parts of the Sherman Antitrust Act , which was established in to outlaw monopolies and cartels.

He found that Microsoft's position in the marketplace constituted a monopoly that threatened not only the competition but also innovation in the industry. Jackson also called for Microsoft to divide the company in half and create two separate entities that would be called baby bills.

The operating system would make up one half of the company and the software arm would make up the other. Microsoft didn't take the ruling lightly and appealed the decision. The company took issue with the judge's position, citing bias in favor of the prosecution. The appeals court overturned Jackson's decision against Microsoft.

Instead of seeking to break up the company, the Department of Justice decided to settle with Microsoft. For one, it creates a provision for US law enforcement to access electronic communications belonging to anyone, no matter where they live.

These agreements—which the president can create with any nation—would allow foreign governments to seize data hosted in the US, without following its privacy laws, so long as they were not targeting a US person or person located within the United States.

In , the Washington Post first reported that a similar arrangement was already being negotiated between the US and the United Kingdom. That may not prevent sticky international data situations in the future, but it's likely at least a first step toward a system that makes sense. The Emails in Ireland. Louise Matsakis is a freelance writer covering tech.

Contributor Twitter. Topics privacy security law Supreme Court Microsoft.