Competition in business provides consumers and the economy with benefits such as innovation and variety in goods and prices. Monopolies threaten the positive advances to innovation and consumer satisfaction that competition provides. As a result, statues such as the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914 prohibits anti-competitive business practices. Microsoft Corporation is one of the top computer companies in the world and in the case of United States v. Microsoft, they were accused of gaining an illegal monopoly in the technology industry.
On May 18, 1998 Microsoft Corporation was accused by the U.S Justice department and 19 states plaintiffs of engaging in anti-competitive practices that violated
…show more content…
The court’s ruling was that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; and as remedy, ordered a breakup of Microsoft. I disagree with the ruling made against Microsoft. Liability of monopolization is not violated if the power in the market is due to superior product. The company’s technology was innovative and successful which was the reason they dominated the market and therefore, not a violation of the monopolization liability. In addition, other firms had equal opportunities to work in the market and Microsoft had competition. Also, there was no strong evidence that proved Microsoft had oppressed competitors.
The Sherman Act and other anti-competitive statues protect the economy and consumers. In the case of U.S v. Microsoft, the government was trying to ensure consumer protection from a potentially harmful monopoly. They may not have gotten the breakup of Microsoft that they wanted, however, Microsoft did not become a monopoly. Although, Microsoft remains one of the top technological companies in the world, consumers are provided with innovative and affordable services from the company, and that is what