The Microsoft Antitrust Case

Litigation against Microsoft was brought up by the US Department of Justice and several state lawyers. Microsoft is accused of using and maintaining exclusive rights to gain unfair advantage in the market. Although this case has been observed for a long time, the judiciary encountered problems in presenting massive evidence to Microsoft. Specifically, it needs to prove that Microsoft has exclusive rights and uses it to gain unjust leverage in the market. And Microsoft maintains this monopolistic power by "exclusive" or "predatory" behavior (rule). Some people say that Microsoft is using its position in China.

Considering recent trends, I take a different approach to this article. Microsoft's antitrust lawsuit is always a phenomenon, one of the most prominent lawsuits in recent years. Therefore, I decided to consider government intervention in individual markets and antitrust law through this particular case. I think we can learn a lot by using specific lawsuits that are happening. In the early 1980s, Microsoft was a much smaller company than today. However, it established a reputation as predator, greedy predator. It is well known that when they find a way to clone technology, whether they are legitimate or not, they mercilessly terminate the license. At that time, Microsoft was fierce competition. The biggest ones are Borland (programming), Ashton-Tate (database), Visicalc and Lotus (spreadsheet), Wordstar and WordPerfect (word processor).

Normally, when most people hear the word "antitrust" they think of monopoly. One of the most famous antitrust litigation in recent memory, Microsoft (MSFT) was convicted of anti-competitive monopoly by forcing its own web browser on a computer with a Windows operating system It is included. Combine the two products: If the monopoly dominates the market share of one product but wishes to acquire the market share of another product, link the dominant product sales to the second product can do. As a result, customers of the second product are obliged to purchase items that they do not need or want, and violate the antitrust law.