Microsoft faced antitrust lawsuits in the late 1990s and early 2000s due to its dominance in the personal computer software market. The U.S. Department of Justice and several state attorneys general alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in operating systems and browsers. A trial court found that Microsoft held a monopoly and violated antitrust laws. The case resulted in a settlement requiring Microsoft to share application programming interfaces with competitors and allow more customer choice.

1. A Presentation on MICROSOFT
ANTITRUST CASE
BY
SAURABH
DHWANI
ROHIT
NUPUR
SHINEE
APOURV
NIKUNJ
AMREEN

3. US Antitrust Policy

4. SHERMAN ACT
 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, unrestrained trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign
nations, is declared to be illegal.
 Every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire
with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of trade or commerce among
the several states or with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony.
CLAYTON ANTITRUST ACT
 It shall be unlawful to discriminate in price between different purchasers of
commodities.
 It shall be unlawful for any person to lease or make a sale or contract on the
condition, agreement, or understanding.
 No Corporation shall acquire the whole or any part of other corporation.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
 Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices are declared
unlawful.

6. Microsoft a monopoly?
 In late 1990, Microsoft’s MS Office applications had 90% of
market share
 Market share in Internet browser market of 44%, server
operating system 36%
 Microsoft adopted pricing policy that prevents entry of new
players and bundle policy
 Distributing Internet browser software, IE, free of cost along
with its windows operating system
“The government viewed microsoft as a paranoid
monopolist,someone who gets up in middle of the night and
shoots at amy moment. ”-chief judge,US District Court.

7. During 1991-1994 investigations by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) ended with no
lawsuits.
In 1994, Microsoft had signed a decree not to bundle its software with its OS unless it was
integrated.
In 1997, it was compelling the PC makers to ship its internet browser free with windows 95.
Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM, Netscape, and Novell formed a loose coalition lobbying intensely
for antitrust action against Microsoft.
On October 20, 1997, DOJ alleged that Microsoft violated the 1995 consent decree.
On December 11, 1997, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued a preliminary injunction barring
the bundling of IE with On May 12, 1998, the Court of Appeals (DC Circuit) ruled that the 1995
consent decree did not apply to Windows 98.
On June 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals voided the 1997 preliminary injunction, arguing that
“courts are ill equipped to evaluate the benefits of high-tech product design.”
DOJ filed a major antitrust suit against Microsoft. In this action (DOJ Complaint 98-12320), filed
on May 18, 1998, DOJ was joined by the Attorneys General of 20 States and the District of
Columbia. 24 witnesses testified over a period of 62 days.
TRIAL

8. 1999, Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft holds monopoly power with its
Windows Operating System and issues his final ruling ordering that
Microsoft be split into two companies, one for the operating system and one
for applications.
In 2000, June 28 – Court of Appeals issues its ruling
reversing Judge Jackson’s order to break up Microsoft, but finding merit in
allegations that Microsoft violated Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act. Court
remanded the case back to a different district court judge for further
findings.
November 2 – Microsoft and U.S. Justice Department announce they have
arrived at a settlement agreement requiring Microsoft to make portions of
Windows software code available to competitors so they can ensure that
their products work with the operating system, and allowing computer
manufacturers to pick and choose which of its products to load onto their
machines without fear of retribution from Microsoft.

9. The verdict
In June 2008, the US District court gave its ruling that Microsoft has
violated the antitrust laws by abusing its power in operating system.
Jackson ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly; basing on 3 factors
Microsoft’s share of the market for operating system was extremely
large & stable
A high entry barrier protected Microsoft’s dominant market share
High entry barrier
Verdict Company should split into 2 smaller companies
Windows operating system
Internet & other Business

10. Options Before DOJ
DOJ stated that it would ask for restrictions on Microsoft's
business tactics. The DOJ had two options:-
Force Microsoft to open its source code for the windows
operating system – to competitors
Allow PC original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to
configure Windows any way they liked, removing Microsoft
programs, adding rival programs, and even changing the
entire appearance of Windows.

11. Microsoft: Appeal
 September 2000, Supreme court declined
government’s bid
 Break up Microsoft not remedy: Supreme court
 Court upheld conclusion of Microsoft having
monopoly & violated US antitrust laws
 In 2001, court ordered Microsoft and US
government resolve remaining issues,after the
court reversed the appeal.

12. • In 2001, Microsoft appealed to the supreme
court to overcome the the case the it had illegal
monopoly, hared customers and stifled
competition.
• In 2001, judge said to Microsoft and the US
Government to resolve the case with additional
evidence to be presented.
• DOJ urged the supreme court to reject Microsoft
plea as the company had violated antirust laws.

13. SWOT Analysis
OPPOTUNITIES
Have potential to attract
more customers
Should establish a clean
image
THREAT
Threat from competitors
companies like from Linux
and Apple
May face strong illegal
obligation
STRENGTH
Huge Brand name and
reputation in the market
Have a monopoly in the
market
WEAKNESS
Customers lacked a
commercially viable alternative
to windows
Contradiction among own
products

14. Conclusion
 Microsoft dominance because of Antitrust
case, affected only for short run
 Microsoft’s OS monopoly continues today
 Microsoft has so many actions against it, can
only cover the most important
 Law should not eradicate competition rather it
should ensure proper competition