They do not cost the consumer because of limited competition because the product Microsoft’s competitors allege make them a monopoly, the browser ties to Windows operating systems, is given to consumers and vendors for free. This analysis will discuss the antitrust suit in an argument that demonstrates why Microsoft is not in violation of antitrust laws and should, therefore, win on appeal.
The ruling of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson charges Microsoft Corp. to be in violation of antitrust law in three cases. Yet, despite this case dragging on for three years and helping lower Microsoft stock, there are few involved on the case (and more of them are fellow-justices) that can point to evidence that Microsoft has hurt the technology industry or consumers in any kind of economic manner. While bullying, arrogance, and deception may be part of Microsoft’s tactics, one would be hard pressed to find a modern international corporation close to this level of success that was not perceived in such a manner. However, economic clout and market success are not violations of antitrust law. Neither is releasing software that comes packed with plenty of extra features, most of them for free. This has made many legal analysts outraged over government intervention in the company’s operations “What harm, if any, has really been done to consumers? Unless there is clear evidence that Microsoft’s actions have actually hurt consumers, the case for ma