Microsoft Antitrust Case

There has been a dish out of debate recently about Bill Gates within the software industry. This debate has occurred because Windows is on the majority of personal desktops, which is considered a monopoly in the system. The conundrum with having a monopoly is that any software that is written by any attach to must work with the Windows operating system.That means that all companies must chaffer with Microsoft before making software. It also means that Microsoft can effectively enter a company by refusing to use their software. Or, Microsoft can create their suffer products that compete with other companies, and they can include it with the Windows operating system for liberate. Since costless products that work well with the operating system (and which is conveniently already there) go forth be chosen over alternatives, Microsoft can severely harm their competitors with this strategy.The lawsuits against Microsoft verbalise that the company was using this cause to destroy varied companies and to boost their get products.Q2) In this country, monopolies are frowned upon. While this is a capitalist society that imparts free market competition, it is assumed that all companies should cod an equal chance to act in the market and to shamble profits. This was especially true in the age of the anti-trust laws, when the Clinton administration was in office, an administration that was against big business as a rule. The verdict handed down was decidedly harsh, calling Microsoft a lens hood in its business dealings with other companies.These issues do exist in other countries as well. In fact, some countries will non allow Microsoft to sell their products anymore because of the proprietary software and operating systems that they use. Countries do not fate products that take over the market entirely, they want competition from different products, like the U.S. does.Q3) Many people felt that Microsoft was not universe 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 throw out the esteem of the consumers, unless they should not go so far as to diagnose 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 spell their products or conduct business in any particular way. However, by writing an operating system that requires software to be produced in peculiar(prenominal) ways, they are basically forcing companies to do things their way, or to lose the business of near 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. other issue is that if Microsoft doesnt like the product a company comes up with, they can force the product off the market by go their own version of it, which comes bundled with their operating system. For sheer convenience alone, Microsoft can win that battle 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 new businesses to break into the system. Also, in Microsofts case, it was not only controlling its own section of the industry, but actually the entire industry. The cases judge considered this type of behavior predatory.Q4) Microsoft is, of course, the primary quill 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, near other software companies, including Novell, Netscape, and PC manufacturer Gateway, are against Microsoft. They are attempt 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 want 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 smaller companies so that they can have a shot at the big top.The government is also hard 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 compositors case of Microsoft because a lot of people are upset about it. This occurred still 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 in 2000). so urceMcLaughlin, Martin (1999). Behind the Microsoft antitrust case computer giants battle for market and profits. ground Socialist Website. Accessed December 7, 2007. Website http//www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/micr-n11.shtml