The Microsoft Antitrust Suit. Trust A trust is any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Microsoft: Admired and Hated Gary Rubin. What Defines a Good Company? Do companies have an obligation to society? Legal Ethical Moral.
Advertisements

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Market Structure.
The EU Microsoft Decision Aryeh Friedman AT&T Corp.
Monopolies and Antitrust Laws
INTERNATIONAL LAW PARMA UNIVERSITY International Business and Development International Market and Organization Laws Prof. Gabriele Catalini.
Domestic Antitrust Laws and Exemptions Regarding International Membership Donald A. Frederick USDA Rural Development Cooperatives Program
1 COPYRIGHT © 2007 West Legal Studies in Business, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and West Legal Studies in Business are trademarks.
Chapter 45 Antitrust Law. Introduction Common law actions intended to limit restrains on trade and regulate economic competition. Embodied almost entirely.
© 2007 by West Legal Studies in Business / A Division of Thomson Learning CHAPTER 20 Promoting Competition.
Perfect Competition: 9.1. Market Structure: -In this chapter, you will learn that businesses are categorized by market structure. -Market Structure: amount.
16. Antitrust Regulation Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases.
High Technology Industries: Competitive Issues and the Microsoft Case.
Chapter Six Market Structures: Why market competition affects you every time you shop!
Strategies then and Now
Regulation and Deregulation Today. Promoting Competition The forces of the marketplace generally keep business competitive with on another and attentive.
Regulation and Deregualtion. Market Power Monopolies and oligopolies control prices, and output. Will often drive other competitors out of the market.
1 C H A P T E R 14 1 © 2001 Prentice Hall Business PublishingEconomics: Principles and Tools, 2/eO’Sullivan & Sheffrin Market Power and Public Policy:
Maintenance of Monopoly
Antitrust Policy and Regulation ECO 2023 Chapter 18 Fall 2007.
THE RISE OF BIG BUSINESS
Vertical Integration:a process in which a business buys out its suppliers of raw materials, transportation of products, and distributors of retail goods.
U.S. v Microsoft A Brief History of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial ( )
American Monopolies. Economic Definition Sole supplier of a product w/no substitutes – Only Nike shoes, McDonalds food, Saddlebred clothes, Dell computers,
Chapter 7 Section 1 Perfect Competition
Enforcing Competition on the Internet Howard Shelanski Georgetown University February 13, 2012.
Antitrust. “Is there not a causal connection between the development of these huge, indomitable trusts and the horrible crimes now under investigation?
Antitrust Policy & Government Regulation. What is a Trust, and Why Don’t we Want one? Trust defined: a combination of firms aimed at consolidating, coordinating,
Analysis of U.S. versus Microsoft. 2 Some Background 1990 Federal Trade Commission begins investigating Microsoft’s marketing practices, including bundling.
 “Market power” is the power of company to control the market for its product.  The law does allow for market monopolies when a patent is issued. During.
1 Announcements: Tuesday Breakout sections: the DeBeers case Next week: the Dupont case Remember to take Quiz 1 on Oncourse.
Competition Policy and Law Presentation to Study Tour for Russian Member Universities of the Virtual Institute Network 26 March 2009.
Practical application of industrial economics: Antitrust Law November 24, 2008 By Kinga Guzdek.
Public Policy in Private Markets Collusion. Announcements HW:  HW 1, graded – can pick up at the end of class  HW 2, due 3/1; HW 3 due 3/6 3/6: first.
UT-EMBA Mexico City 2005 Monopolization  Under §2 of the Sherman Act, it is illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize.  EC Art. 82 outlaws “abuse”
Business and Society POST, LAWRENCE, WEBER Antitrust, Mergers, and Global Competition Chapter 9.
Market Structures Regulation and Deregulation. How firms increase Market Power  Controlling prices - leading firms can form a cartel, merge, or practice:
Chapter 20 Antitrust and Regulation of Competition Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without.
Jonathan Huelman. Monopolies and Trusts  mo·nop·o·ly [muh-nop-uh-lee]  1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control.
Antitrust Law 1. Learning Objectives: 1.The three major pieces of federal antitrust legislation 2.Monopoly power vs. monopolization 3.Horizontal vs. Vertical.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2002 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Chapter 38 Antitrust.
 Federal gov may regulate business for any reason as long as advances gov economic need  States may regulate business as long as the laws do not interfere.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Monopoly Power: Getting it and keeping it US Perspective Sharis Pozen, Partner ACCE Seminar 13 May 2008.
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND BACKGROUND April 1816 Congress chartered the Second National Bank Some people felt that the National Bank harmed State economies.
Chapter 23 Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices.
Monopoly and Antitrust Policy. Imperfect Competition and Market Power An imperfectly competitive industry is an industry in which single firms have some.
Getting to California horizontal integration – combining many firms engaged in the same type of business into one monopoly – when a single company gains.
© 2005 West Legal Studies in Business, a division of Thompson Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 PowerPoint Slides to Accompany The Legal, Ethical, and International.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 26 Antitrust and Monopoly.
1 Chapter 13 Practice Quiz Tutorial Antitrust and Regulation ©2000 South-Western College Publishing.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1 Overview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Roland W. Wentworth Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
Anti-Competitive Behavior Monopolies (Ch. 15) & Oligopolies (Ch.17)
The Case against Microsoft. © 2004 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved12-2.
Market Structures Chapter 7. Get a Sheet of paper out ► List the following on a half sheet of paper:  Three favorite cereals  Three favorite brands.
Market Structures Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4.
Case Studies: Microsoft and Apple (Gates and Jobs)
European Union Law Week 10.
Chapter 32 Antitrust.
Ian Bracy Brian Hendel David Jones
Chapter 37 Antitrust Law.
Chapter 22 Promoting Competition.
Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4
Chapter 27: Antitrust and Monopoly
Monopoly and Antitrust Laws
The Rise of Big Business
Strategies then and Now
Monopolies and Antitrust Laws
Chapter 7 Section 4.
The Case against Microsoft
Presentation transcript:

The Microsoft Antitrust Suit

Trust A trust is any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic control over production of some commodity or service (Websters) So antitrust means against or opposing a trust Antitrust law protects competition, not necessarily competitors –for the benefit of the consumers (long run)

The Sherman Antitrust Act Original federal statute opposing trusts (1890) Named for Senator John Sherman Based on Congress constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce Regulated by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and/or the Federal Trade Commission Many states have similar statutes

Sherman if we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over production, transportation and sale of any of the necessaries of life

Two Criteria Monopoly power –having substantial market share (over the long run), i.e. enough power to control the market Exclusionary or predatory practices –acts which have no legitimate business purpose other than to stamp out competition

An example: United States v. Lorain Journal Co. The Journal (in Lorain, Ohio) would not take ads from businesses that advertised on the local radio station which represented the only competition for advertising revenue –Monopoly power: they were the only paper in town –Exclusionary or predatory practices: refusing to take ads had no legitimate business justification other than to eliminate competition

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General, Janet Reno Assistant Attorney General, Joel Klein The trial counsel, David Boies (a.k.a. Jaws, also lawyer for Gore in Florida Supreme Court)

Microsoft Chairman, Bill Gates President and CEO, Steven Ballmer Lawyer, William Newkom

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson

Questions 1. Does Microsoft have monopoly power? 2. Has it engaged in predatory or exclusionary practices?

Findings of Fact The judge has ruled the pertinent market to be that of Intel-Compatible PCs –so non-Intel compatible PC operating systems (e.g. Mac) are not seen officially as competitors –likewise for non-PC operating systems (e.g. Unix) in the market so defined, Microsoft has monopoly power and is likely to maintain it for some time to come (why?)

Platform Recall that the software between the user and the hardware is multi-layered The operating system provides a platform, the so-called application programming interfaces (APIs) upon which applications interact with the hardware This platform allows Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) to focus on application software and not hardware idiosyncrasies

The Standard Bearer Microsofts dominance provided ISVs with a standard platform to build their applications upon Self-perpetuating situation: –The more standard it became, the more ISVs used it to write their applications –The more ISVs used it to write their applications, the more standard it became

Applications barrier to entry The overwhelming majority of consumers will use only a PC operating system for which there already exists a large and varied set of high-quality, full-featured applications

What price software? One criterion for establishing whether a company has monopoly power is its pricing practice. It is difficult to apply the standard rules to software Most of the cost is in development, almost none in production

Remember Establishing monopoly power is not enough Did Microsoft engage in predatory practices to maintain or extend its monopoly? The current allegations focus on Microsofts inclusion of its browser Internet Explorer (IE) along with its operating system Windows

Is a browser an application? Recall a browser is software used to gain access to and view files on the World Wide Web Part of the operating systems job is to manage files; these days those files may be on the web, so maybe the browser is part of a modern operating system But the browser is used directly by the user, so maybe its an application

Microsofts side The inclusion of IE is a matter of integration and innovation; it is: –what the user wants –what the ISV wants –consistent with past business practices (Office is the integration of word processing, spread sheets, and so on)

The DOJs side The inclusion of IE is a matter of bundling and leveraging Bundling is offering or supplying related products or services in a single transaction at one all-inclusive price Leveraging is the act of placing a less popular product in the same package as a very popular product

Give it away, give it away, give it away now The DOJ views the inclusion of IE with Windows 98 as giving it away, which would constitute predatory pricing Microsoft also gave IE to users of non-Microsoft operating systems, such as Apples Macintosh

Other alleged predatory practices Withholding crucial technical information Excluding Netscape Navigator from important distribution channels Developing and insisting upon the usage of their own implementation of Java

Three stages 1. Finding of fact –November Conclusions (ruling) of law –April Remedy (judgment) –June 2000

Findings of Fact (Nov. 1999) After a 76-day trial (no jury), Judge Jackson came out with his Findings of Fact, the first step toward judgement His view is very consistent with the DOJs and has been called a Readers Digest version of the governments Finding of Fact

Judge quotes: Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible operating systems Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition.

Judge quotes (cont.): Microsoft needed to give its browser away in furtherance of the larger strategic goal of accelerating Internet Explorers acquisition of browser usage share.

Conclusions of Law (Apr. 2000) Not very surprising, given the Findings of Fact According to them, Microsoft did violate the Sherman Antitrust Act

Klein quote: "We are very pleased with the Court's ruling. The Court concluded that Microsoft violated the antitrust laws by abusing its monopoly power and attempting to monopolize the internet browser market. The decision will benefit consumers and stimulate competition and innovation in the high-tech industry."

Balmer quote: We spent the past 25 years thinking of ourselves as a small, aggressive company playing catch-up to industry giants, even though at some point along the way we became a large company. … values we hold dear opportunity for everyone, integrity, innovation, customer focus and partnership have been called into question today.

Remedy (June 2000) Breaking up Microsoft –Baby Bills One for Operating Systems One for Applications (incl. browsers) The big wigs cannot own a substantial stock in both (who will be the standard bearer?)

More to follow Directly to the Supreme Court? –NO United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit –No (U.S. vs. Microsoft) –No (New York, et al. v. Microsoft)

Technology Tutorial To speed things up, the Appeals judges were going to have a technology review But even basic questions like what is a browser? and what is an operating system? are controversial in this case And neither side wanted their point of view compromised by the review

Whats to come? Oral arguments in the Court of Appeals are scheduled for Feb. 26 and 27 After that: –Supreme Court? –European Union? –Individual and/or class action suits?

References conference.asp 64.htmhttp:// 64.htm asp Newsweek, Nov. 15, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 8, The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 5, The Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000.