e agreement Microsoft and the Justice Department had come to. The review had been elongated by Judge Sporkin’s rejection of the deal. The signing, however, did not take the heat off Microsoft’s proverbial back. The Justice Department had already begun investigating some of their concerns about the company’s practices regarding new software and whether they were complying with the agreement. This investigation has become the allegations we have all been hearing about in these last few months. By the time the Judge Jackson signed the agreement, the government was already looking into Microsoft’s decision to include access to its new on-line service, the Microsoft Network, into its new OS, Windows 95. Competitors were afraid that this would allow the company to once again take advantage of its monopoly power in operating systems (Microsoft currently has its Windows software in 80% of new PCs and over 90% of all PCs) to gain a large share of the on-line market. A mere three months after its release, the company announced that the Microsoft Network had already enrolled more than 525,000 members. They also had projections putting them over the 2 million member mark by the end of the next year (1996). This went on to fuel its competitors worst fears. America Online, Prodigy and CompuServe were among those that had long been arguing that Microsoft had an unfair advantage with its on-line access included in the OS. “’The industry’s fears are partially correct. Having a button on the desktop works. People click on it,’ said Adam Schoenfeld, of Jupiter Communications,” (Cooper 1). Microsoft’s response to the situation at that time was merely to suggest that there was no evidence showing MSN’s close connection to Windows 95 had tilted the tables into its favor. In September of 1996, Microsoft received a written request for information, (this is known as a civil investigative demand) ...
