Antitrust Claims

Antitrust Claims
Name
Grade Course:
Tutor`s Name:
(February 17, 2012)
Antitrust Claims
Despite of having a lion share in the operating system, Microsoft continue to receive accusations of unfair dealings. The allegations such as monopolization of the operating system market have continued to block other providers in the market. For a long time now, Microsoft continues to dominate the personal computer operating systems used on over 80% of Intel-based PCs. It is also clear that majority of the new Intel-based PCS are pre-installed with a windows version before shipment. For this reason, the PC manufacturers barely have commercial alternatives for all the PCs they manufacture and distribute to the market. This shows the monopolistic power of Microsoft.
It is eminently true that, both new and potential operating system providers continue to face a stiff barrier to entry in the market. The monopolistic power of Microsoft made through the creation of concurrent software applications which needs to be run together with the operating system for efficiency (Alan, 2001). By observing the needs of their end users, Microsoft has been able to capture the market by providing this attractive though expensive and time-consuming operating systems.
And in order to fully dominate the market, Microsoft has engaged in a series of anti-competitive activities which aims at exploiting the vulnerable competitors in the market. They do this by tying other Microsoft software products to their windows operating system and blocking their competitors from promoting and distributing their products via Microsoft operating system. Microsoft move to tie its internet browser to its monopolistic operating system significantly reduces the consumer choice in the market (Elzinga & David, 1999). This forces the consumers to forcefully purchase Microsoft Internet Browser. By so doing, Microsoft violates section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which sort to outlaw contracts and conspiracies that restrain trade. Microsoft also goes against section 2 of the Sherman Act which rules out the monopolistic trade.
In my view, the continued suppression of Netscape through distribution limitation goes against Sherman Act. Despite of Netscape move to appeal for the lifting of the law, Netscape still cannot be effectively distributed through Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and IAPs (Areeda & Louis, 1997). The predatory pricing and investment plans that Microsoft engage into, not only hinder the new system providers into the market, but it also make their sustainability difficult. To mention but a few, Microsoft behavior of financing the Internet Explorer consumers, Internet Service Provider (ISP) and Independent Activities Period (IAP) are among the predatory measures of the company. All this was meant to empower IE and preserve its super-profit streams for the sale of Windows (Page & John, 2009). 
In conclusion we can argue that Microsoft contin...