Hence, in 1998 the Department of Justice filed suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging the company bungled internet Explorer web browser along with its Windows operating system to gain a competitive edge in order to remain a viable source and be profitability. Microsoft strategic efforts were to outlast, outwit competitors through innovation and customer demands, which gave them monopoly power over its operating system and web browser sales. Microsoft also understood that within competitive market strategies for continual improvement and innovative products are a key ingredient for success (Hisrich & Shepherd, 2010). Thus, Microsoft manipulated its operating system to be more compatible with its own application interfaces and internet browser in order to dominate other competitors. As a result, antitrust claims against Microsoft are valid because fraudulent means were used to bungle its operating system and internet explorer web browser in order to gain advantages over competitors.
Microsoft Corporation monopolized a vast majority of personal computers with their software. In addition, Microsoft threatened PC developers that they would revoke Windows distribution licensing agreement if manufacturer removed Internet Explorer icon off desktop applications. If the PC manufacturers had removed the Explorer icon during installation, this would have taken away Microsoft manipulative monopoly and competitive edge, and the company would probably not remain a viable source for profitability. Therefore, by threatening manufactures with the notion of pulling Windows distribution licensing agreement, Microsoft inadvertently forced PC makers to comply with its directives to include Internet Explorer web browser as part of the Windows installation process while crushing the functionality of browsers such as Netscape, Java Linux and others to work effectively with its Windows operating system interfaces.
This was in direct violation to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Microsoft was sued and found guilty of monopolizing the PC industries. Microsoft bungled Internet Explorer along with their operating system and made other programs incompatible with Microsoft interfaces. Consumers had no choice; internet explorer was automatically planted during the installation process. After the guilty verdict, the company was broken up into two entities whereby one half was responsible for operating system and the other half software components. Bungling between Microsoft operating system and its internet browser was no longer allowed. Furthermore, as part of their settlement agreement, they must share their programming interfaces for internet browsing to other third party companies requiring the use of such application. In addition, the settlement also called
for implementing an independent watch group to ensure Microsoft remains in compliance with applicable law and non violating of antitrust acts.
On one or a company is above the law. However, Microsoft received a slap on the wrist for their wrong doings.
Hisrich, P. M., & Shepherd, D. (2010). Entrepreneurship (8th ed.) New York, McGraw-Hill
Taylor, E. (2011). Innovation and technology: Retrieved Nov 4, 2011, www.jamaicastar.com
