Analysis of U.S. versus Microsoft. 2 Some Background 1990 Federal Trade Commission begins investigating Microsoft’s marketing practices, including bundling.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The EU Microsoft Decision Aryeh Friedman AT&T Corp.
Advertisements

Monopolies and Antitrust Laws
Antitrust Policy and Regulation Chapter 18 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Is Microsoft guilty of illegal tying? þ A crucial question to be decided in the DOJ case against Microsoft is this: Did the company leverage its dominant.
Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As): Running Afoul of Antitrust Laws Jennifer Sawayda Program Specialist Anderson School of Management University of New Mexico.
Economic objectives of antitrust laws 1. The protection and preservation of competition. 2. To protect the consumer’s welfare by prohibiting deceptive.
Chapter 45 Antitrust Law. Introduction Common law actions intended to limit restrains on trade and regulate economic competition. Embodied almost entirely.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Improving the Product.
Exclusivity and Tying Microsoft’s aim: to exclude rivals and potential rivals. Practice of MS: Tying. Exclusive contracts.
16. Antitrust Regulation Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases.
Introduction to Antitrust Law n Always two questions in any antitrust case: –What is prohibited according to the antitrust statutes? –Will the actions.
The US and EU competition policies: cooperate or compete? Alix Grassin Christin Fröhlich.
Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy Information Policy Carl Shapiro Hal R. Varian.
High Technology Industries: Competitive Issues and the Microsoft Case.
Merger Remedies Workshop October 25, 2010 Deborah P. Majoras Chief Legal Officer & Secretary The Procter & Gamble Company.
Understanding Appeals and the Appeal Process the Appeal Process.
C OMPETITION LAW IN NIGERIA Daniel Bwala. Background There is no specific Competition law in Nigeria at the moment. However there are laws or rules in.
Antitrust Policy and Regulation Chapter 18 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4. Slide 2 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 7, Section 4 Objectives 1.Explain how firms might try to increase.
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
Market Dominance. Definition – Market Dominance Firms that have a high market share. Market share can be measured by the share of sales or customers in.
U.S. v Microsoft A Brief History of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial ( )
Anti-trust Practice in China concerning SEP and FRAND China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd.
Case COMP/ – ENI (Abuse of Dominant Position) International Competition Law Dushanka Dovichinska 24 Nov 2010.
1 INTRODUCTION OF THE LAWS ON ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION AND ABUSE OF MONOPONY POSITION IN VIETNAM Speaker: Mr. Trinh Anh Tuan Official Vietnam Competition.
Antitrust Policy & Regulation If the slide has a green background: you are responsible for content If the slide has an all red background, you are not.
Antitrust Policy and Regulation Chapter 18 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
마스터 제목 스타일 편집 마스터 텍스트 스타일을 편집합니다 둘째 수준 셋째 수준 넷째 수준 다섯째 수준 In Ok Son Korea Fair Trade Commission Abuse of dominance in hi-tech markets and network.
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,
마스터 제목 스타일 편집 마스터 텍스트 스타일을 편집합니다 둘째 수준 셋째 수준 넷째 수준 다섯째 수준 Hwang Lee Not for citation and/or distribution beyond OECD Korea Regional Centre.
1 Announcements: Tuesday Breakout sections: the DeBeers case Next week: the Dupont case Remember to take Quiz 1 on Oncourse.
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”
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4. Slide 2 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 7, Section 4 Introduction When does the government regulate.
Business and Society POST, LAWRENCE, WEBER Antitrust, Mergers, and Global Competition Chapter 9.
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 in e-Commerce Law of e-Commerce October 20, 2008 Guest – Randy Gordon Copyright, Peter Vogel,
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.
Legal Environment for a New Century. Click your mouse anywhere on the screen when you are ready to advance the text within each slide. After the starburst.
Market Failure #3 Monopolies
Chapter 23 Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices.
Market Failure #3 Monopolies 1 Monopoly Monopoly Review 1.Draw a monopoly making a profit. Label price, output, and profit. 2.Identify three specific.
COPYRIGHT © 2011 South-Western/Cengage Learning. 1 Click your mouse anywhere on the screen to advance the text in each slide. After the starburst appears,
© 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)
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
The Case against Microsoft. © 2004 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved12-2.
The Judicial Branch (part 1) Chapter 8. Role and Equal Treatment The Judicial Branch – Federal Courts ▫Use the law to settle civil disputes and to decide.
Monopoly Defined A monopoly is the ONLY firm in an industry. – No one produces the output nor sells the monopolist’s product. – There are local monopolies.
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.
The Economic Environment of Business – Lecture 5 Competition Policy.
Market Structures Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4.
Judicial Review The Supreme Court’s power to overturn any law that it decides is in conflict with the Constitution.
1 Click your mouse anywhere on the screen to advance the text in each slide. After the starburst appears, click a blue triangle to move to the next slide.
Antitrust Policy & Regulation
Case Studies: Microsoft and Apple (Gates and Jobs)
Ian Bracy Brian Hendel David Jones
Chapter 37 Antitrust Law.
Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4
Proceedings.
Monopoly and Antitrust Laws
Monopolies and Antitrust Laws
Chapter 7 Section 4.
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4
The Case against Microsoft
“The View From the Corner of U.S. Competition Law and Patents”
Presentation transcript:

Analysis of U.S. versus Microsoft

2 Some Background 1990 Federal Trade Commission begins investigating Microsoft’s marketing practices, including bundling application and operating-systems software Justice Department (DOJ) takes over the investigation.

3 Some Background 1994 Settlement regulating Microsoft’s marketing practices to DOJ files suit to the acquisition of Intuit, a large financial-software firm.

4 Some Background 1995 MS and Intuit cancel merger plans. District Judge A. Sporkin calls the ‘94 settlement inadequate. Appeals Court overturns his decision. DOJ looks at plan to bundle Win95 with MS Network.

5 Some background 1995 Court order prohibiting MS from forcing computer makers to license any other MS product as a condition of licensing Win Netscape files complaint against Microsoft with DOJ

6 Some background 1997 State of Texas launches an antitrust investigation of Microsoft’s business on the internet. DOJ requests information on Microsoft’s plan to acquire WebTA, an internet- television hybrid. State of Mass. Begins an antitrust investigation.

7 Some background 1997 European Commission investigates MS’s licensing after complaints DOJ asks a federal court to hold Microsoft in civil contempt for violating terms of the 1995 court order and seeks to impose a $1m-per-day fine for as long as the violation continues.

8 Microsoft Accused DOJ and attorneys general from 20 states, launched the suit on May 18, 1998 “What cannot be tolerated -- and what the antitrust laws forbid -- is the barrage of anti-competitive practices that Microsoft uses to destroy its rivals and to avoid competition.” -- J. Klein, DOJ

9 Microsoft Wins a Round June 23, 1998 A federal appeals court reversed an earlier court ruling that had granted a preliminary injunction forcing the software company to offer a version of its Windows 95 operating system without its IE.

10 The Question Matters Whether or not MS indulged in “tying” is not the key point at issue in the broader case. More important is whether, as a monopolist, Microsoft has behaved in a way that is inconsistent with its legal responsibilities.

11 The Microsoft Trial Filed on May 18, Commenced on Oct. 20, Ended on Sept. 21, 1999, after 76 days of testimony. Judge Jackson issued the findings of fact on Nov. 5, Ruling on April 3, 2000.

12 The Verdict Judge rules Microsoft violated antitrust laws MS used its OS monopoly power to dominate the browser market MS used its clout in the software market to maintain its monopoly in OS MS bundled its browser into its OS to try to force Netscape out of the browser market

13 The Indisputable Fact Many of the s collected by the DOJ reveal that Microsoft was extremely rattled by the success of Netscape’s Navigator, seeing it as a threat to the dominance of Windows, especially when combined with the Java programming language, which can work with any operating system.

14 Microsoft’s Memos (I) Unless MS was to “leverage Windows…I don’t understand how IE is going to win.” “My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on…loses our biggest advantage -- Windows market share.” -- J. Allchin, senior VP, late 1996

15 Microsoft’s Memos (II) “If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together.” -- J. Allchin, senior VP, early 1997

16 Microsoft’s Memos (III) “Memphis [the in-house name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade, but most importantly it must be a killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance on these systems.” -- J. Allchin, senior VP, early 1997

17 What’s New in Windows 98? According to computer analysts a few bugs have been eliminated a so-called Universal Serial Bus improve Windows 95’s “plug and pray” –make it easier to configure things like printers and modems –files are stored more economically –one or two other useful features such as better management of notebook-battery consumption

18 Things to Ponder Is the Microsoft ruling “a great victory for American consumers?” When defining remedies, what criteria should be applied? –“structure” vs. “conduct” remedy

19 Remedies Proposals Impose restrictions on the contracts that MS can write with the sellers of complementary goods and with competitors. Force MS to disclose the APIs that allow it to include IE in the OS. Force MS to give away the Windows source code, or license it to successful bidders in an auction imposed by the government on MS.

20 Remedies Proposals (Cont.) Break up MS according to lines of business. Break up MS in three equal parts, with each part containing an equal amount of each business. Break up MS along lines of business (OS and applications) and then break the OS division in three equal parts.

21 Remedying Microsoft June 2000 Judge Jackson accepted the proposal by the DOJ that Microsoft should be broken up into an operating-system company and a separate applications company.

22 Microsoft Gets a Break Sept 2000 Resignation of Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division Refusal of the Supreme Court to review the case before Washington’s appeal court has had its say

23 Going Microsoft’s Way? Feb 2001 Election of George Bush Charles James, who also criticized the break-up plan, is the new head of the government’s antitrust division,

24 Going Microsoft’s Way Feb 2001 The case returned to the courtroom The court addressed three issues –correct finding? –correct remedy? –fair trial?

25 Antitrust on Trial What role should antitrust law play in an advanced market economy? Can the software, telecoms, and other fast-changing high-tech enterprises of the 1990s be dealt with, when it comes to antitrust, in the same way as traditional industries?