- Microsoft (MS) vs. Department of Justice (DOJ)
- Short Chronology of Microsoft case
- October 1997 – government sues MS
- December 1997 – Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson orders injunction to
stop, at least temporarily MS from requiring manufacturers to have
Internet Explorer, MS appeals the decision
- May 18, 1998 – U.S. DOJ & 20 states file antitrust case after
negotiations between MS and officials breaks down
- Nov. 5, 1999 – U.S. District Court judge holds monopoly in market for
PC operating systems, and that company’s actions harmed consumers.
- Nov. 19, 1999 – Negotiations begin between MS and the government with
Judge Richard Posner mediating
- April 1, 2000 – Judge Posner announces end of negotiations without
resolve.
- April 3, 2000 – Judge Jackson rules MS violated antitrust laws.
- April 28, 2000 – DOJ asks Judge Jackson to split Microsoft into two
businesses. One devoted to Windows operating system and the other to MS’s
other businesses.
- Sept. 26, 2000 – Supreme Court declines to consider the government’s
bid to break-up MS and sent the case to a lower court.
- Feb. 26, 2001 – MS and government have a two-day appeal of Judge
Jackson’s decision to split-up Microsoft at the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- June 28, 2001 – U.S. Court of Appeals reverses Judge Jackson’s
decision to break-up MS. Sent the case to a new Judge questioning the
partiality of Judge Jackson.
- July 11, 2001 – MS says it will give PC manufacturers more flexibility
in configuring desktop versions of its Windows operating systems.
- Aug. 7, 2001 – MS asks Supreme Court to take up the case.
- Sept. 6, 2001 – DOJ decides not to seek to break MS in two.
- More recent developments
- Questions for class
- Who is right in this case, the government or MS? Why?
- What would be the good and the bad repercussions for breaking apart
MS?
- Why is it difficult to determine what is a monopoly in the new
technical fields?
- Is there a special court needed to handle complicated business and
technology cases?
- What is meant by the following statements from the articles:
- “The company also maintained that it's not a monopoly, because the
market it competes in is more than just personal computers -- it
encompasses practically every kind of device that uses software. But the
judges didn't seem to buy that argument.”
- “The dispute was over what the law calls "tying" -- bundling one
product with another.”
- Ethical & societal implications
- What are the societal implications if MS breaks-up?
- What are the implications if MS does not breakup?
- What is the government’s argument with what was ethically wrong by
what MS did?
|