The Point
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson finds that Microsoft is a relentless and predatory monopolist.
Judge Jackson says that:
Microsoft established and maintained the Windows monopoly by using the "applications barrier to entry," which gives Microsoft enduring monopoly power.
Microsoft harnesses independent software vendors to create products that take advantage of new application program interfaces (APIs) built into each release of Windows.
Gives PC makers no choice but to install the new operating system, at whatever price Microsoft decrees.
The Counterpoint
Microsoft maintains that it has sought only to innovate, serve customers, and protect its intellectual property.
Microsoft says that it is not a monopoly because:
It competes with itself by continually releasing "new and improved" versions of Windows.
Technological change will ensure that any dominance it enjoys is fragile.
Already, "middleware" (applications like RealNetworks) have their own APIs, which new and existing applications might hook on to liberating software developers from the operating system beneath and weakening the applications barrier to entry.
Useful background items are:
Questions for Discussion
Which side, if any, do you take in the Microsoft case?Do you think the Court correct in finding Microsoft a monopoly? Why or why not?Do you think MicrosoftÕs counterclaim is correct? Why or why not?What do you think should happen to Microsoft? Why?