Industrial Organisation for Microsoft Corporation Versus United

Question: Discuss about theIndustrial Organisation for Microsoft Corporation Versus United Sates. Answer: The case is based on the legal provision of Anti-trust law and observation of the court in case of any breach to the rules mentioned under the law. The case study has been depended on anti-trust law of United States. According to this, anti-trust law consists of certain legal approaches made to regulate the conduct of the any organization or any business corporation so that they can work for the benefit and interest of the consumers (Jones and Sufrin 2016). It is a statutory provision that has been comprised in three different Acts such as Sherman Act 1890, Clayton Act 1914 and Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. The main purpose of the Act is to prohibit those practices that are restraining the trade practice. The Act is specifically against the monopoly and monopolistic power. There are certain authorities who are responsible to take a close vigil over the issue and they are empowered with the power to bring an action in the court (Buxbaum 2018). United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) is a case that is based on the provision s of the anti-trust law. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that Microsoft Company has represented its monopolistic nature in case of using the web browser Internet Explorer (Rubinfeld 2015). It has been stated in that case that Microsoft has provided an offer to the windows users regarding the free installation of Internet explorer to catch the market and it has been observed that other web browsers such as opera has to face various problems due to the same. According to the contention made by the plaintiff in this case, the monopolistic nature of the company has breached the provision comprised in section 1 and section 2 of the Sherman Anti-trust Act 1890. Department of Justice in USA is conferred with the power to settle the dispute arisen in the case. Considering the complaint that has been filed in this case, it has been observed that Microsoft has violated the facts wh ile operating the sales of the web browsers. Windows is the most popular operating system in the world and it has been alleged that the company is manipulating the application programming interfaces to retain their super visionary power over the market of web browsing. On the other hand, Microsoft has contended that the windows and the Internet Explorer is their own creation and they can take all the policies to catch the market. According to them, the policies are taken by it not intended to make any breach to any legislation. Windows and Internet explorer are inextricable to each other and the users can freely use the explorer and as soon as they are entering into the operating system, they can get a link wherefrom they can use the explorer. The main issue of the case is to decide whether the web giant Microsoft has the right to bundle the Internet Explorer with its windows operating system or not. It has been alleged that the activities of the company made certain obstacles regarding the other web browsers like Netscape Navigator and Opera. All these browsers are required to be purchased from the store and the downloading speed of these browsers are also slower compared to Microsoft. In that occasion, the activities of the Microsoft can be treated as manipulating nature (Lifland 2017). The conduct of Microsoft regarding the restrictive licensing agreement with the original equipment manufacturers is treated as the breach of conduct. The first attempt to analyze the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft has been made in the year 1992. An inquiry has been conducted by the Federal Trade Commission to understand the activities of the company regarding the operating system market and it was confirmed by the company that it woul d not tie any of its product with the windows operating system. It was orders that Microsoft can add any feature to the operating system. However, again, the company has included the internet explorer with its explorer and therefore a suit has been filed against the company before the US Department of Justice (Sullivan, Grimes and Sagers 2015). The suit against the company has begun in the year 1998 and filed before US Department of Justice. The main allegation against the company is that the company is thwarting the competition regarding the web browsing illegally. It has been contended that the company is trying to protect its monopolistic attitude towards the promotion of the software. The company, during its deposition submitted certain video clips and on that basis, the plaintiff has contended that in the PC screen certain icons are disappeared and reappeared indicating the falsified version of the operating system. However, according to Microsoft, the acts of the company were intended to protect the interest of the consumers and all the policies taken by the company have provided much benefit to the consumers (Abrams 2017). It has been stated by the company that in case the company has done anything monopolistic could have done for the consumers. However, it has mentioned in Sherman Anti-trust Act that if any person h as been proved to commit monopoly, he shall be liable for felony and in this case, the complainant has to prove the following facts: The offender has certain market power; The offender is intending to acquire the market position by such act. Both the requirements are fulfilled in this case. It has been proved that the company has possessed a good position in the market and the company is providing Internet Explorer along with the windows. The main intention of the company is to use the monopoly power to harm the rivals. The court has held the company liable under the anti-trust Act. However, the court has advised the company to maintain the rules of the Act and modify their policies accordingly. Court has not charged the company under felony. According to certain analysts, the court has not taken strict step due to the positional supremacy of Microsoft. Reference: Abrams, L., 2017. Biosimilars Exclusive Dealing Antitrust Law: The Case of Pfizer Inc v Johnson Johnson et al. Buxbaum, H.L., 2018. Transnational Antitrust Law. Hovenkamp, H., 2015.Federal Antitrust Policy, The Law of Competition and Its Practice. West Academic. Jones, A. and Sufrin, B., 2016.EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. oxford university Press. Lifland, W.T., 2017.State Antitrust Law. Law Journal Press. Rubinfeld, D., 2015. The Microsoft Antitrust Cases: Competition Policy for the Twenty-First Century. Sullivan, L., Grimes, W. and Sagers, C., 2015.The Law of Antitrust, An Integrated Handbook. West Academic.