This document provides a summary of the 2001 United States Court of Appeals case United States v. Microsoft Corporation. The case found that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly of personal computer operating systems through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices. Specifically, the court ruled that Microsoft had bundled its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system in an abusive manner that restricted competition from other browsers. However, the court reversed the district court's initial remedial order and remanded the case to draft a new remedy.
This document provides a summary of the 2001 United States Court of Appeals case United States v. Microsoft Corporation. The case found that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly of personal computer operating systems through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices. Specifically, the court ruled that Microsoft had bundled its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system in an abusive manner that restricted competition from other browsers. However, the court reversed the district court's initial remedial order and remanded the case to draft a new remedy.
This document provides a summary of the 2001 United States Court of Appeals case United States v. Microsoft Corporation. The case found that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly of personal computer operating systems through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices. Specifically, the court ruled that Microsoft had bundled its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system in an abusive manner that restricted competition from other browsers. However, the court reversed the district court's initial remedial order and remanded the case to draft a new remedy.
This document provides a summary of the 2001 United States Court of Appeals case United States v. Microsoft Corporation. The case found that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly of personal computer operating systems through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices. Specifically, the court ruled that Microsoft had bundled its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system in an abusive manner that restricted competition from other browsers. However, the court reversed the district court's initial remedial order and remanded the case to draft a new remedy.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Example of Case Study:
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Full case name: United States v. Microsoft Corporation, for committing monopolization Argued: February 2627 2001 Decided: June 28 2001 Citation(s): 253 F.3d 34 Case history Prior action(s): United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F.Supp.2d 59. (D.D.C. 2000), direct appeal denied, pet. Cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000). Subsequent action(s): Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 534 U.S. 952 (2001) (pet. cert. denied); 231 F.Supp.2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002) (on remand), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Holding That the finding of the District Court that Microsoft violated the Antitrust Act is affirmed, the remedial order of that court is reversed, vacated, and remanded for the drafting of a subsequent remedial order. Court membership Judge(s) sitting: Harry T. Edwards, CJ; Stephen F. Williams, Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel, JJ. Case opinions: Per curiam. Laws applied: 15 U.S.C. 2
United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (2001) is a US antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to theSherman Antitrust Act 1890 sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating systemand web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated itsapplication programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct. Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft's position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies. Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ one is focused less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barrier to entry.