What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft charged above-competitive prices (see Microsoft's Pricing Behavior)?
"I anybody know anout this case it will be very helpful"
References : In 2002 a U.S. court of appeals imposed remedies relating to a lower court's findings that Microsoft had a monopoly in personal computer (PC) operating systems and had maintained its monopoly through illegal actions. At theU.S. Justice Department's Web site, www.usdoj.gov, use the DOJ Agencies listing to find Antitrust Division and then Antitrust Case Filings. Locate U.S.v. Microsoft and select District Court
7 Answers | Add Yours
In my experience, Microsoft's need to control their platform has never actually hindered determined users. Although I don't have the ability to change codes and write programs, I use free versions of almost everything -- and I have since before the monopoly case. For example, I use Jarte and q10 instead of Word, Firefox and Chrome instead of IE... and even if Microsoft were able to cripple Windows to prevent third-party programs, the program creators would be able to circumvent them -- they already do, in many cases!
The behaviour of Microsoft was highlighted for criticism because of the way in which it used its position as market leader to basically raise prices without reference to what its competitors were charging. This shows that Microsoft was relying too much on the monopoly that it had and was not being attentive to its customers and their needs.
It does seem to be the case that since that court ruling, other search engines have gained market share in competition with Internet Explorer. Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and other engines seem to have benefitted. Ironically, the very dominance of IE made it a more attractive target to people who like to create viruses.
It was argued that Microsoft used the market dominance of Windows as leverage to force other products, in particular Internet Explorer onto the market to the exclusion of all competitors, in particular at the time, Netscape. If they had wanted to (and as observed above, sometimes they did), it was within their power to charge exorbitant prices, but the issue arose from bundling IE to Windows, which, given its dominance, throttled competition and stifled (it was argued) innovation.
Yes, basically Microsoft was a monopoly because it was acting as a monopoly. It was engaging in pricing practices, like those listed above, that demonstrated that it did not care what its competition did and it had total control over the market.
As with the last time you asked a question about this, the link is here.
The judge noted, for example, that Microsoft did not pay any attention to the prices its competitors were charging when it set its prices for Windows 98. It also, just before releasing Windows 98, raised the price of Windows 95. Neither of these is the sort of pricing behavior you would expect from a company in a market structure other than monopoly.
thiink of microsoft as Rockefella
We’ve answered 300,962 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question