• On what basis did the court conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly (see "Market Share")?

The court concluded that Microsoft had a "dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems" (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). At the time Microsoft's share of the market had been greater than ninety percent for every year of the prior ten years (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). For the prior few years, Microsoft's market share was over ninety-five percent (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). It had been projected that they would claim more of the market in the future (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018).

• What was Microsoft's market share of Intel-compatible PC operating systems? Of all operating systems, including those of Apple computers?

At the time Microsoft's share of the market had been greater than ninety percent for every year of the prior ten years (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). For the prior few years, Microsoft's market share was over ninety-five percent (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). It had been projected that they would claim more of the market in the future (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018).

When Apple computers were included in the market, Microsoft's share was still above eighty percent (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018).

• What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft charged above-competitive prices (see "Microsoft's Pricing Behavior")?

The court stated that Microsoft's behavior was that of a monopoly (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). Competitors' pricing was not a consideration of Microsoft (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). Microsoft was about to release Windows 98 and it increased the price of Windows 95, so when Windows 98 was released, it was for sale at the same price as the older version (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018). This proved Microsoft had no doubt that the Original Equipment Manufacturers would continue to purchase from them rather than buy a substitute product (U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact, 2018).

Reflection:

As I watched the video on AT&T and the split into all the Bell companies was presented, I remembered having the big yellow Bell Atlantic phone book as a kid (mjmfoodie, 2013). I also remember reading about that case in an elementary school textbook and it struck me that an event that happened in my life had already made its way into a history book.

Now, as I read this case of US vs Microsoft, I am reminded of my family's old computer that ran Windows 95 and used dial-up internet. I remember getting the Windows 98 upgrade. Maybe this is not the lesson I am supposed to get from this assignment, but I feel old! Things change quickly. Technology is helping us grow, learn, communicate, and develop things so much faster than we used to as a society.

On a microeconomics level, I have learned more about monopolies and their impact on the products we use in our daily lives. Microsoft created a product that the world became dependent on and without anti-trust laws could have continued predatory pricing practices. This was a great example where anti-trust laws protected the consumer.

respond with value-added comments to your classmates.