u.s. v. microsoft (2001) maintenance of monopoly
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
U.S. v. Microsoft (2001)
Maintenance of Monopoly
![Page 2: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIn May of 1998, the US Department of
Justice, twenty individual states, and DC filed suit against MicrosoftClaimed Microsoft had monopolized the
market for PC OSsAlso that it had used its monopoly to engage
in a wide range of antitrust violations
![Page 3: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
IntroductionCased was tried in federal court starting in
October of 1998The court determined its legal conclusions
on April 3, 2000After appeals, settlement discussions, and
a remedy trial period, Microsoft eventually settled at the end of 2002
![Page 4: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
IntroductionConsidered the antitrust case of the 1990s.
Arguably one of the most significant of the 20th century
Problems for Microsoft beyond this case:Class actions on behalf of consumersThe EU begins increased enforcement
Focused more on the media player packaged into Microsoft’s operating systems
![Page 5: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Claims by Both SidesThe Government claimed that Microsoft
had engaged in multiple anticompetitive acts to protect its OS monopolyConsumers were being harmed by higher
pricesMicrosoft’s actions had reduced innovation
Microsoft argued it was not a monopolyHighly dynamic industry
Microsoft also claimed to be procompetitive since consumers benefitedAccess to high quality, innovative software
![Page 6: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
BackgroundMicrosoft a relatively young corporation
Began its existence in the mid 70sSince then, has exploded growth-wise and
made many of its employees millionairesWith success comes (antitrust) scrutiny
Questions about whether or not Microsoft has restrained competition, excluded competitors, or expanded its market power through noncompetitive means
![Page 7: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Background (Earlier Cases Against MS)In 1990 the FTC investigated Microsoft
Involved software licensing practicesWas voted to bring no suit against the company
Immediately after that investigation ended the DOJ started its ownIn 1994, the DOJ filed a complaint saying that
Microsoft’s contracts with OEMs were anticompetitive/exclusionary
Case did not go to trial. Microsoft settled with the GovernmentSigned a consent decree which limited Microsoft but still
explicitly allowed the development of “integrated” products
![Page 8: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Background (How it Got Started)The battle of the browsers
Netscape Navigator was first successful internet browser
To catch up Microsoft forced OEMs to license and install their browser (Internet Explorer)The Government sued Microsoft for this and was
initially successfulOn appeal, however, it was ruled that the
combination of Internet Explorer and the OS offered functionality not available without product “integration.
![Page 9: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Background (How it Got Started)DOJ, 20 states, and The District of Columbia
brought suit against MS claiming:That Microsoft had engaged in a range of
practices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman ActOS Licenses with OEMsContracts with ISPsTies between its OS and Internet Explorer
That Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the market for internet browsers (Violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act)
![Page 10: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Why Java/Netscape Was a ThreatHigh “applications barrier to entry”
Operating Systems depend on a wide range of applications to be successfulThese are typically sunk costs once you’ve spent
time developing them
Java could potentially lower the barrierCross-platform languageNetscape could potentially distribute Java to
independent developersThey could choose to write programs for another OS
(OS/2 or Linux), putting Microsoft’s monopoly at risk
![Page 11: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
An Overview of the Economic IssuesDid the Microsoft Corporation possess
monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems?
Did Microsoft maintain its monopoly power by a series of anticompetitive actions that unreasonably restrained trade?
![Page 12: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Claim #1Government's View:
Microsoft did possess monopoly power in the market for operating systems for Intel-compatible desktop personal computers
Microsoft's View:The relevant market for antitrust purposes is substantially
broader than Intel-based PC OSs; it includes hand-held computer operated systems and servers
Also, it faces threats from other non-OS platforms that can support applications and threats from yet unknown innovations
The very fact that Microsoft found it necessary to take action against Netscape and Java shows that those companies and their products are in the market. Thus, Microsoft does not have monopoly power.
![Page 13: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Claim #2Government's View:
They claimed Microsoft foresaw the possibility that the dominant position of its Windows OS would be eroded by Internet browsers and by cross-platform Java.
Microsoft engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices in order to protect the monopoly power of its Windows OS
Microsoft's View:It did perceive a competitive threat from Java and
responded in a number of ways to combat that competitive threat
However, those responses were the reasonable and appropriate responses of a competitor and cannot be appropriately characterized as an attempt by Microsoft to maintain its OS monopoly.
![Page 14: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Debating the Economic IssuesDid Microsoft have monopoly power?
The Government’s PerspectiveYes, according to market share data Microsoft’s
share of PC operating systems was very high and had remained stable over time.
During the 1990s, Microsoft’s worldwide share of shipments of Intel-based operating systems had been approx. 90 percent or more
![Page 15: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Debating the Economic IssuesMicrosoft’s Response
Microsoft denied it had market power, claiming that the government’s market definition was invalid
It argued that it competed vigorously to remain a provider of the leading software platform. Any market power it enjoyed was temporary, thus could not be characterized as monopoly power
![Page 16: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Debating the Economic IssuesThe Court’s Perspective
The court supported the Government’s position on the market definition and monopoly power issues
They also affirmed that there were significant barriers to entry in the market
![Page 17: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Did Microsoft Maintain Its Operating System Monopoly by Thwarting the Threat Posed by Netscape’s Browser?
The Government’s CaseThe government stressed that by bundling its
free browser with its OS, Microsoft prevented browser companies from entering the browser market unless they entered the OS market as well
![Page 18: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Did Microsoft Maintain Its Operating System Monopoly by Thwarting the Threat Posed by Netscape’s Browser?
Market AllocationMicrosoft took part in a number of market
allocation efforts with Netscape, Apple, and Intel in an effort to minimize the competitive threat to its OS monopolyNetscape-Microsoft attempted to limit Netscape to
the server market, so Microsoft could dominate the PC browser market
Intel- Microsoft threatened to deny support for Intel’s new generation of processors
Apple-Microsoft required Apple to make Internet Explorer the default browser on all Macintosh operating systems
![Page 19: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Did Microsoft Maintain Its Operating System Monopoly by Thwarting the Threat Posed by Netscape’s Browser?
Predatory PricingMicrosoft devoted $100 million per year to
develop Internet Explorer which it distributed at a negative price
Predatory Pricing StrategyDefinition: A strategy in which the predator forgoes
current profits in order to eliminate or cripple the competition, with the expectation of recouping those forgone profits at some point in the future.
![Page 20: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Bundling and OEM RestrictionsMicrosoft bundled IE with Windows 95 and
with Windows 98 The Government stated that there was
separate demand for browsers and for operating systems
1996: Microsoft imposed screen and start-up restrictions on OEMs The Government argued that Microsoft
viewed Netscape as a platform to support substitute OSs
![Page 21: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Exclusionary Agreements with ISPsMicrosoft drew up contracts with ISPs to
limit the number of customers to whom ISPs could distribute other browsers
Microsoft created a desktop folder for “favored ISPs”Government stated that Microsoft extracted
promises from those ISPs
![Page 22: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Exclusionary Agreements with ISPs (cont’d)ISP restrictive provisions:
75% or more ISP shipments must only have IE and only include a competing browser when requested
Restricted total shipments of non-Microsoft browsers
Government saw provisions as anticompetitive
![Page 23: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Microsoft’s Response“Browser battle” was really part of larger
effort to be leading PC provider of Microsoft Windows
Actions were not predatory improving its own browser and OSnot eliminating Netscape
Efficiencies in integrating browser into OS
![Page 24: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Microsoft’s Response (cont’d)Discussions with Netscape, Apple, and Intel
did not alter their behaviorOffering free browser was “natural step”
toward integrating the browser into Windows 95 and 98
Government did not provide evidence that integrating the browser into its OS was “not profit-maximizing apart from any predatory motives”
![Page 25: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Microsoft’s ResponseOEM restrictions justified in order to
“preserve the quality and speed of the start-up process”
Bundling is not anticompetitive if firm does not have market powerIn fact, efficiencies would be lost if Microsoft
had to separate its browser from the OS
![Page 26: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Microsoft’s Response (cont’d)Justified in competing aggressively for the
distribution of its browserHence, ISP agreements were necessary
OEM and ISP agreements = “no harm, no foul”Netscape could distribute its browser through
the mail or encourage downloads from the web
![Page 27: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The Court’s ViewJudge Jackson supported the Government’s
claims of anticompetitive actsSided with the Government on:
Market allocationPredatory pricingBundlingExclusionary agreement
![Page 28: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Was Microsoft’s Alleged Anticompetitive Behavior Harmful
to Competition?
![Page 29: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
The Government’s ViewMicrosoft succeeded in excluding Netscape
from OEM distributionRelevant measure = Microsoft’s share of
browser usageContract restriction responsible for decline
in Netscape’s shareMicrosoft’s browser share reached over
85% by mid-2000
![Page 30: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Microsoft’s ResponseWide distribution of browser = more people
buy PCs to browse the InternetPlanned to improve the quality of its
browserNone of its actions had or would harm
consumersAOL could distribute Netscape if it so
choseMicrosoft’s share of the browser market
would diminish
![Page 32: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Microsoft’s Response (cont’d)Disputed Government’s measure of
browser market shareNumbers offered that the market for
browsers had not tipped in Microsoft’s favorNetscape failed to market its browser more
effectivelyMicrosoft had a better product
![Page 33: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
The Court’s PerspectiveFindings of Fact supported the
Government’s view“To the detriment of consumers,…Microsoft
also engaged in a concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications barrier to entry, and hence its monopoly power from a variety of middleware threats…” –Judge Jackson
![Page 34: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The Court’s Perspective (cont’d)Microsoft kept Navigator from becoming an
innovation that could enable other firms to compete effectively in the OS market
Microsoft’s actions deterred investment in technologies and businesses that could threaten Microsoft
![Page 35: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Resolution?The U.S. v. Microsoft case has now been
resolved, and a remedy chosenPath to remedy circuitous
The appellate court made clear it’s dislike of a structural remedyEasier to enforce than behavioral remedies, but also
riskier as far as creating inefficiency
Proposed settlement contained 3 components
![Page 36: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Proposed SettlementFirst, attempted to prohibit Microsoft from
foreclosing the OEM channel by eliminating restrictive licensing agreements and outlawing retaliatory measures.
Second, it attempted to keep the ISP distribution channel open by placing limits on Microsoft’s ability to discourage companies from promotion of other middleware.
Third, the settlement offered a series of compliance measures whose goal is to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
![Page 37: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Opposition to the Proposal9 States Opposed the Initial Proposal
The proposal didn’t prohibit Microsoft from illegally bundling it’s middleware with its OS
Claimed that the proposal wouldn’t effectively prohibit retaliatory conduct or open the ISP channel of distribution
Were worried Microsoft could still withhold vital technical information from developers of rival middleware
Enforcement mechanism won’t be effective
![Page 38: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The Result?Judge Kollar Kelly was generally supportive
of the initial settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft
The court did offer more aggressive compliance procedures sympathetic to the issues raised by the litigating states
![Page 39: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Where are We Now?Almost a decade later, the government’s
predictions about browser competition have turned out to be correct.IE’s share of the market grew to over 90%Microsoft’s OS monopoly continues today
New challenges for MicrosoftA rise in browser competition from Firefox,
etc.Power has shifted to web based companiesLinux based operating systems gaining
traction
![Page 40: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001) Maintenance of Monopoly](https://reader037.vdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e545503460f94b4ac78/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)