accused Microsoft of was that Microsoft would specify a minimum number of operating systems that the retailer had to buy. This would eliminate any chance for another operating system vendor to get their system installed until the retailer had installed all of the Microsoft operating systems that it had installed.In addition to specifying a minimum number of operating systems that a vendor had to buy, Microsoft also would sing contracts with the vendors for long periods of time such as two or three years. In order for a new operating system to gain popularity, it would have to do so quickly, in order to show potential buyers that it was worth something. With Microsoft signing long term contracts, they eliminated the chance for a new operating system to gain the popularity needed quickly.Probably the second most controversial issue, besides the per processor agreement, was Microsofts practice of tying. Tying was a practice in which Microsoft would use their leverage in one market area, such as graphical user interfaces, to gain leverage in another market. In the preceding example, Microsoft would use their graphical user interface, window to sell their operating system, by offering discounts to manufacturers that purchased both MS-DOS and Windows, and threatening to not sell Windows to companies who did not also purchase DOS.In the end, Microsoft decided to suck it up and sign the settlement agreement. In signing the agreement. Microsoft did not actually have to admit to any of the alleged charges, but were able to escape any type of formal punishment such as fines.The settlement that Microsoft agreed to prohibits it, for the next six and a half years from. Charging for its operating system on the basis of computer shipped rather than on copies of MS-DOS shipped; Imposing minimum quantity commitments on manufacturers; Signing contracts for greater than one year; Tying the sale of MS-DOS to the sale of other Microsoft products. Although th...
