uting Microsoft was set forth in United States v. Griffith, which states that a monopolist may not use a monopoly in one field as a leverage to gain a monopoly in another. It is using its OS monopoly power to gain a monopoly in the browser field. If it is determined that Windows and Internet Explorer are two separate and distinct fields then they are breaking the law if however as Microsoft claims they are not then what they with respect to the tying charge have is simply a competitive advantage. Another major charge against Microsoft is that of Exclusionary Agreements. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly position in one product to force companies to agree to distribute another of the monopoly owner's products at the expense of a competitor. Microsoft talked Internet service providers (ISPs) such as America Online (AOL) as part of the Windows operating system. According to the DOJ, "Microsoft's anticompetitive agreements with ISPs have substantially foreclosed competing browsers from this major channel of browser distribution. Over 30 percent of Internet browser users have obtained their browsers from ISPs." This particular charge, in my opinion, lacks validity. Microsoft is not "forcing" anyone to distribute its products. They made a business deal with ISP's such as AOL and CompuServe. AOL made Microsoft's Internet Explorer the default browser - the browser AOL subscribers would use unless they specifically asked for Netscape's Navigator. In return, Microsoft would give AOL a start-up icon on the Windows desktop. This, to me, does not require force. It's just a trade off in advertising. It may have given Microsoft an edge over Netscape in the browser war but it was not illegal. What is illegal in Microsoft's conduct is a meeting, which took place between Microsoft and Netscape in May of 1995. Microsoft allegedly attempted to eliminate competition from Netscape by seeking an express horizontal agreement not to compete. They wa...
