icrosoft believed that a browser "war" would be difficult because Netscape (originally) held 80% of marketshare and Internet Explorer, only 20%. They decided to use their Windows OS market power. The DOJ claims Microsoft's conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to Microsoft's Window's operating System-specifically, the bundling of Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser with windows. The illegal conduct of tying occurs when a seller conditions the sale of one product on the purchaser's agreement to buy a second (different) product. Tying is illegal under section 2 of the Sherman Act if the seller has a monopoly in the tying product, the tied product, or is attempting to monopolize the market for the tied product. Many cases are also brought under section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and section 1 of the Sherman Act. The standard for tying is the same. The four main elements required to be proven to make out a case of tying are: (1) there are two distinct separate products, (2) the seller tied the two products together, (3) the seller possesses market power in the tying product, and (4) a substantial amount of commerce is in the tied product is affected. Microsoft is accused of unfairly demanding that computer manufacturers also install Internet Explorer, a web browser, as a condition of installing it's Windows operating system. That requirement may or may not be a violation of antitrust laws. The court will have to determine whether there are two separate products being tied or if there is in fact only one product. Internet Explorer may or may not be viewed by the courts as an "integrated" component of Windows. Microsoft claims that the Internet Explorer and the Windows operating systems are effectively one integrated product. The courts decision will be based on their interpretation of the word "integrated," that is, on how much interdependence must exist before Windows and Internet Explorer are dee...
