Current legal topic

Case of Alleged Violation of Law Article The competing interests in this article are the United s and MicrosoftCorporation. United State vs. Microsoft Corporation is a U. S.’s antitrust law case concurrently settled by the Department of Justice. Microsoft was considerably accused of enjoying the monopolistic competition unfairly. This Corporation, additionally, was engaging in certain abusive practices, which were unlawfully president over by the United States business corporation acts. The prosecution was initiated on May 20, 1998. This case was overwhelmingly presented by 20 states to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The lead prosecutor on the case was Joel I. Klein. This essay aims at explaining the United States versus Microsoft corporation lawsuit tussle.
When governmental and privately owned corporations are lawfully at loggerheads as much as justice must prevail, the government interests must be sublingually served. In this case, for instance, it was 20 American states versus Microsoft Corporation (The United States Department of Justice). Firstly, the legality of business practices by Microsoft Corporation in the American technological marketing structures was questionable. In the American corporation policy, it is often provided for a capitalistic competition rather than monopolistic competition. This country is a capitalist hence various businesses are allowed in the money market. Becoming a monopoly, therefore, made Microsoft Corporation as self-interested business entity as opposed to the government, which serves the interest of the people. The Plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft Corporation abused the monopolistic competition legal framework by using Intel-based personal computers (The United States Department of Justice). Accordingly, Microsoft operating system and web-browser sales were acquiring a larger sales portion than other market competitors were. To reduce this monopoly, the American government had to act swiftly to serve its capitalistic nature interest. Overly, the issue central to this case was whether Microsoft would be left at the epitome of the flagship internet explorer web browser software in its Microsoft windows system or pave way for other corporations. Seemingly, Microsoft did not emerge the winner in this legal battle as the government rightfully accused the company. Additionally, the government was serving the interest of many in the America corporate world.
In conclusion, the law according to this case should allow for a free and fair market competition among the computer marketing structure. For a healthy marketing competition especially in capitalistic competitive marketing structures, amalgamation would only mean a monopoly. It was, therefore, necessary for the Microsoft Corporation to pave the way for the other cooperation’s by minimally using abusive marketing practices. This practice ultimately was an infringement of the other corporation’s rights punishable by law. The American judicial system if was to go by law would, therefore, have no option but to withdraw Microsoft corporations license of business operations. Alternatively, Microsoft Corporation’s business operations may have been put on probation until they were ready to comply by the American capitalistic competition legal framework. In assertion to the reasons as to why Microsoft Corporation indulged into such malpractices, it could have been evident that Internet Explorer’s development and marketing costs may have kept the price of windows higher than it might otherwise have been. This considerably would have led to Microsoft and internet Explorer’s amalgamation to stay relevant on the internet software market.
Works Cited
The United States Department of Justice. United States V. Microsoft Corporation (Browser and Middleware). Retrieved from: http://www. justice. gov/atr/cases/ms_index. htm on 01/12/2014