Microsoft has been investigated several times for antitrust violations. While most of those cases led nowhere, there was one suit brought forth that “the US articulated a compelling story of anticompetitive activity…” (Lopatka, 2008, para 1). Microsoft’s questionable practices were brought into light and determined to be in violation of the Sherman Act. This paper discusses what antitrust claims were made and whether those claims were valid.
Microsoft and Antitrust Violations
The purpose of antitrust statues is to preserve and promote free market competition in the United States (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010). The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 were a response to the post-civil war emergence where large businesses were buying up competitors or driving them out of business (Mallor et al., 2010). Microsoft has been investigated for antitrust claims multiple times, and while it was (“Microsoft” is singular, so pronouns used to describe it should be singular, too – fix this throughout the paper) not found to be in violation on all of them it was determined that there were violations. There were three main antitrust claims that were brought against Microsoft, and they (as written, this was a comma splice) ultimately led to the correct conclusion that Microsoft was stifling competition and violating the Sherman Act..
Antitrust Claims against Microsoft Corporation
“The plaintiffs [the United States, 19 individual states, and the District of Columbia] claimed that Microsoft violated (1) § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in monopolization through a series of exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain its monopoly power…” (Mallor et al., 2010, p. 1275). Under § 2 of the Sherman Act, it is illegal for “every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of trade or...