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 deemed to be "integrated." To what extent does Internet Explorer rely on the code built into Windows, and visa versa? Also, can Internet Explorer be "uninstalled" without compromising the operation of Windows? The DOJ claims that tying Internet Explorer and Windows is a misuse of Microsoft's operating system monopoly to artificially exclude browser competition and deprive customers of a free choice between browsers. Customers still have a choice. With a few clicks of the mouse, anyone can download Netscape is they should choose to do so. Does Microsoft have a unique advantage by being able to package its browser with Windows? Of course. It has earned that advantage, because it, and no one else, developed Windows into a leading product. Yes, it is true that because end users want a large number of applications available and most applications today are written to run on Windows, there are some barriers to entry in the market for PC operating systems. It seems unfair to penalize Microsoft for being too successful but if in the long-haul their success results in harm to consumers, then preventative action should be taken now. Provisions of the Clayton Act make it illegal "where the effectmay be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, " for a firm to "tie" the sale of one separate product (which Internet Explorer might be legally judged to be) to the sale of another (Windows). The most important doctrine in prosec...
