Microsoft: Difference between revisions - Consumer_Action

Line 7:

New windows 11 builds are now shipping with the extremely unpopular feature called Copilot which is an AI feature which will record everything on the screen.

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

In the major antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/</ref>, 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 following was said in the court case: "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's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."

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

# the prohibition for modifying the initial boot sequence

# the prohibition of otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop

The case was eventually settled<ref>https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/dl</ref><ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/</ref>, and did not result in a company breakup<ref>https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/long-antitrust-saga-ends-for-microsoft/</ref>.

Section III.H of the Consent Decree<ref>https://www.justice.gov/atr/microsoft-consent-decree-compliance-advisory-august-1-2003-us-v-microsoft</ref> required Microsoft to "allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products, including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism". End users and OEMs should be able "to specify a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default middleware product to be launched in place of the corresponding Microsoft middleware product".

In the case United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/</ref>, Microsoft's Conduct taken as a whole is described as "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers".

== References ==

[[Category:Companies]]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 New windows 11 builds are now shipping with the extremely unpopular feature called Copilot which is an AI feature which will record everything on the screen.
+== Court cases up to the early 2000s ==
+In the major antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/</ref>, 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 following was said in the court case: "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's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."
+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
+# the prohibition for modifying the initial boot sequence
+# the prohibition of otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop
+The case was eventually settled<ref>https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/dl</ref><ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/</ref>, and did not result in a company breakup<ref>https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/long-antitrust-saga-ends-for-microsoft/</ref>.
+Section III.H of the Consent Decree<ref>https://www.justice.gov/atr/microsoft-consent-decree-compliance-advisory-august-1-2003-us-v-microsoft</ref> required Microsoft to "allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products, including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism". End users and OEMs should be able "to specify a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default middleware product to be launched in place of the corresponding Microsoft middleware product".
+In the case United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/</ref>, Microsoft's Conduct taken as a whole is described as "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers".
+== References ==
+<references />
 [[Category:Companies]]