uct Microsoft should be forced to split itself into two companies.Solution 2Microsoft allows existing owners of Windows to download the latest version of Internet Explorer off the Internet at no charge and gives away copies of the web browsing software that Microsoft has written for other operating systems. The Supreme Court has indicated that a monopolist pricing is not predatory unless its prices are below an appropriate measure of that firms costs. Thus, giving away copies of Internet Explorer would be predatory, as “free” has to be below appropriate costs. So, Microsoft gives away its web browsing software in the expectation of earning revenues elsewhere. While the efficiencies of putting Internet Explorer into Windows seems clear, the eventual effect is so great that it diverts demand from web browsing software such as Netscape’s Navigator and Communicator. It was not until Microsoft came out with Internet Explorer versions 3.0 and 4.0 that people started choosing it over Netscape. Therefore, requiring Microsoft to offer Netscape could serve as another solution. Ensuring that Microsoft’s systems are consistent throughout the market and include Netscape assures software developers that if they write their software that uses a certain language in Windows, it will be present in every copy of Windows installed on a computer. That consistency also ensures consumers that they won’t have to relearn how to use their computer each time they purchase a new one.Based on tests by Microsoft and journalists they found that Netscape worked to its maximum capabilities on Windows. Microsoft should be required to treat Netscape no differently than any of its other thousands and thousands of ISVs that write programs for Microsoft. In short, given the predatory pricing of Microsoft, requiring them to offer Netscape would emphasize to Microsoft that it is in their best interest to avoid even the appearance that t...
