argued that allegations of anti-trust were unfounded. Defense for Microsoft also addressed the point of licensing agreements, stating that they did not have the required anti-competitive effect to meet the criteria established in the Sherman Act. In fact, Microsofts actions were no more than an effort to protect their copyrighted works, and that activity did not restrict the opportunities of Microsofts competitors. The thrust of Microsofts arguments centered on the perceived failings in the plaintiffs offerings of proof. Council for the defense argued that the plaintiffs failed to: Prove that Microsoft unlawfully attempted to monopolize the market for web browsing software in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act Prove that Microsoft acted with a Specific Intent to obtain monopoly power Prove That There Is a Dangerous Probability That Microsoft Will Achieve Monopoly Power in the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software Prove that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a monopoly in "Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems" in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Prove predatory pricing practices Establish the requisite causal connection between the allegedly anti-competitive acts and the maintenance of the alleged monopolyFurther, the defense argued that Microsoft didnt have "Monopoly Power" in a properly defined product market. Those markets deemed relevant were not restricted to Intel-Compatible PC operating systems. The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft had the power to control prices ort otherwise exclude the competition was refuted. Microsoft had no duty to pre-disclose information about Windows 95 to Netscape before the product was released. So where does this leave the concept of Free Enterprise?In My OpinionFrom the perspective of a shareholder, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Finding of Fact in US vs. Microsoft is an unjust assault on achievement and ability. The judge's...
