installed, and not for computers that ran other operatingsystems. (Check 2)Another practice that the Justice Department accused Microsoft of was thatMicrosoft would specify a minimum number of minimum number of operating systemsthat the retailer had to buy, thus eliminating any chance for another operatingsystem vendor to get their system installed until the retailer had installedall of the Microsoft operating systems that it had installed.(Maldoom 2)In addition to specifying a minimum number of operating systems that a vendorhad to buy, Microsoft also would sign contracts with the vendors for longperiods of time such as two or three years. In order for a new operating systemto gain popularity, it would have to do so quickly, in order to show potentialbuyers that it was worth something. With Microsoft signing long term contracts,they eliminated the chance for a new operating system to gain the popularityneeded, quickly.(Maldoom 2)Probably the second most controversial issue, besides the per processoragreement, was Microsofts practice of tying. Tying was a practice in whichMicrosoft would use their leverage in one market area, such as graphical userinterfaces, to gain leverage in another market, such as operating systems,where they may have competition.(Maldoom 2) In the preceding example, Microsoftwould use their graphical user interface, Windows, to sell their operatingsystem, DOS, by offering discounts to manufacturers that purchased both MS-DOSand Windows, and threatening to not sell Windows to companies who did not alsopurchase 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 ofthe alleged charges, but were able to escape any type of formal punishment suchas fines and the like.The settlement that Microsoft agreed to prohibits it, for the next six and ahalf years from: * Charging for its operating system on the basis of comput...
