Microsoft: Difference between revisions

Line 66:

*Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}}

*Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov }}</ref>

*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>

*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>

*Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov}}</ref>

*Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

Line 83:

===Court cases up to the early 2000s===

In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),~~{{Citation needed}}~~ Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:

In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5" /> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:

#The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 *Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}}
 *Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov }}</ref>
-*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>
+*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>
 *Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov}}</ref>
 *Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ===Court cases up to the early 2000s===
-In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),{{Citation needed}} Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:
+In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5" /> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:
 #The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries