Microsoft: Difference between revisions

Line 10:

Microsoft also owns numerous other tech-related businesses, primarily through business acquisitions. They also commonly invest heavily in artificial intelligence enterprises, most notably, ''[[OpenAI]]'' (best known for creating ''[[ChatGPT]]'').

== Consumer impact summary ==

=== Monopolization ===

Exclusive licensing agreements with IBM and other PC manufacturers ensured that MS-DOS became the dominant OS.

Priced MS-DOS significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.

Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. Windows had captured over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.

Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. vs. Microsoft antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5" />

Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref>{{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>

==Controversies==

===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),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ "U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</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 ''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">[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ "U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</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 ''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 122:

Line 138:

Given the scale of Windows and Office deployments, the cumulative energy consumed by collecting, transmitting, storing and processing this data across the globe is also an environmental concern.

== Products and services ==

==References==

[[Category:Microsoft]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Microsoft also owns numerous other tech-related businesses, primarily through business acquisitions. They also commonly invest heavily in artificial intelligence enterprises, most notably, ''[[OpenAI]]'' (best known for creating ''[[ChatGPT]]'').
+== Consumer impact summary ==
+=== Monopolization ===
+Exclusive licensing agreements with IBM and other PC manufacturers ensured that MS-DOS became the dominant OS.
+Priced MS-DOS significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.
+Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. Windows had captured over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.
+Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. vs. Microsoft antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5" />
+Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref>{{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>
 ==Controversies==
 ===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),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ "U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</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 ''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">[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ "U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</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 ''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 122: / Line 138: @@
 Given the scale of Windows and Office deployments, the cumulative energy consumed by collecting, transmitting, storing and processing this data across the globe is also an environmental concern.
+== Products and services ==
 ==References==
 <references />
 [[Category:Microsoft]]