ed to take both in one package. MS makes no extra charge for the browser, pricing it at zero, thus selling it below cost. A MS spokesman even stated that if they were forced to offer ist OS and its IE as seperate products, the company would still charge exactly nothing for the browser. This forced Netscape to stop charging for the Navigator and to give it away.A statement from MS: Were giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating system. How long can Netscape survive selling it?!MS was angry that Netscape dared to step into its OS territory and so MS stepped into Netscapes territory of browsers. The clear intent was not to compete with Netscape on the respective values of the Explorer and the Navigator but to drive Netscape out of the browser market altogehter. Sure thing ppl started to use the IE instead of the Navigator and ist share of the browser market skyrocketed, propelled by the operating system monopoly.As a defense MS rationalizes ist merging of the IE and Windows with the argument that any producer is entitled to define its own product. Should it be required to offer ist browser separetetly or to incorporate the Navigator in Windows, the company claims that it would be like asking the DoJ everytime MS intends to add a new function to the OS for permission.This preposition is not true. That a monopolist or a virtual monopolist is not free to define ist products in a way that stifle competition, meaning to erase any competition, is clear from Aspen Skiing Co vs. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. The defendent Skiing Co owned and operated downhill skiing facilities on three mountains; plaintiff Highlands operated on the fourth mountain. For years the two companies offered a week-long pass, the all Aspen ticket that was usable at any of the four mountains. Skiing Co then initiated various changes that ended the cooperation with Highlands. Skiing Co denied skiers the benefits of a four-mountain pass and diminished substan...
