Microsoft Antitrust: Government
Many representatives of the U.S. government strongly believe that competitive markets are both obtainable and socially preferred no matter the situation. To them, there is little belief in the inevitability of a monopoly in any industry. Under this rule of thought, many have also come to the conclusion that the reason America contains so few of these "idealistic" markets, is because many monopolies and oligopolies have come into being and power through unfair market practices.
In governmental antitrust policy, the goal is to detect foul play amongst the giants in an industry and restore justice as well as integrity to that marketplace through enactment of regulating legislation and law enforcement. They do so in attempt to prevent, and if possible, reduce the increase in an industry's concentration ratio.
The Microsoft Antitrust case is a fantastic representative of the government's intent on eliminating monopolies. The sheer magnitude of this case has often been compared with America's biggest antitrust battles since the creation of the Sherman Act in 1890.
On November 1, 2002, the U.S. district court accepted a settlement between Microsoft and the nine states who brought the case, dictating that Microsoft was found to have acquired an illegal monopoly. They were engaging in the unlawful business practices by using their dominance in the operating systems market to make inroads on other areas of the computer software market, whilst eliminating competitors in those on the way.
Throughout the duration of the case, every lawfully substantiated remedy the U.S. has developed to remove monopolies, was offered up as a resolution to this case. There was talk of attempted nationalization as well as severe regulation and breakup, but most of these claims were made out of misunderstanding of the issue.
Through the initial litigation, the federal government had developed a soundly standing case that Microsoft has used it's influence in the computer world to run Netscape out of business, thus allowing it to dominate the web browsing market in addition to it's operating systems stronghold, while also using licensing agreements to take advantage of PC manufacturers.
Initially, a federal judge found Microsoft to be guilty of forming and illegal monopoly and ordered that Microsoft be split into two companies; that decision, however, was later thrown out because the government found the judges verdict to be influenced by personal bias, and his judgment overly severe. The initial judgment that Microsoft was in fact a Monopoly stood, but the case was remanded to a lower court to create a better alternative remedy for Microsoft's fate.
The main point of the final settlement detailed that Microsoft must refrain from any activities or contracts that would demand or compel other companies to do it's bidding. This sanction was enacted by the Department of Justice because, under the Rule of Reason, the most condemning evidence in Microsoft's case was that it used it's size to undercut competitors on the way to the top, and used other unlawful in attempt to find a dominant place the computer industry as a whole.
In today's courts, the "per se" argument is no longer valid when combating antitrust, because there is no clear way to delineate a line between size and antitrust action. In an age when most of America is run in "big business," there is simply no longer a justification for prosecuting companies who have gained their size simply engaging in legal competition.
The Microsoft antitrust case is a fantastic example of government regulating monopolistic conduct to ensure a competitive market in a certain industry. Though generally, the company was allowed to maintain its power and size, Microsoft will be sanctioned with certain restraints over the next five years on what they can and can't do in the industry. These restraints serve as protections for the rest of the computer software industry and help insure another bustling and competitive market in America, that is the governments roll in trust-busting.