Press "Enter" to skip to content

Microsoft

Microsoft The current Microsoft antitrust case, still in progress as this review is being written, has been both hailed and condemned as the most important antitrust action of the coming century. Its potential significance has been compared to that of the Supreme Court’s 1911 Standard Oil decision, which not only applied for the first time the trust-busting power latent in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to break up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, but of at least equal importance enunciated the rule of reason on which judicial interpretation of the Sherman Act continues to be based. While none of this conference volume’s contributors develops this comparison, readers may come away from the book feeling that it is apt.; As noted in Lenard’s introduction and overview, there was general agreement among the conferees that the Microsoft case did not indicate any need for revision of existing antitrust laws. Yet the book identifies a paradox. Today’s computer industry has so many elements of natural monopoly–notably network effects and first-mover advantages–that the market will not work well if left to itself, yet it is far too complicated and fast moving to be regulated effectively. Antitrust is the only feasible policy option, but unless applied with skill and discretion, it may do more harm than good.

In particular, consumer welfare is more likely to be enhanced by policy initiatives aimed at keeping the industry open to the introduction of major new technologies that might challenge the dominance of incumbents than by policies seeking to promote price competition among existing firms employing established technologies.; The paper by Michael L. Katz and Carl Shapiro discusses the fundamental economics of software markets, focusing, not surprisingly, on network effects, but also identifying and discussing the effects of the high set-up costs and low–even zero–marginal costs of software, the durability of software systems, and their rapid technological change. This paper’s treatment of network effects is sharply challenged in Timothy J. Muris’ comment, which argues that network effects comprise a model for which very few, if any, valid empirical examples exist.; Janusz A. Ordover and Robert D. Willig confront the basic question of whether or not there is any role for antitrust in high-tech markets. After reviewing competing arguments, they conclude that antitrust may be crucial in protecting long-run competition in innovation and that this should be its primary objective.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

Their particular concern is with bottlenecks such as Microsoft’s monopoly control of the operating system market, which is a crucial component of a broader system of computer use, including applications such as word processing and access to the Internet via browsers. They propose a three-pronged test to ascertain whether monopoly control of such a bottleneck exists and if so whether it is being used to exclude or restrain potential competitors from other markets in the system: i.e., are short-run profits being sacrificed by exclusionary tactics in the hope of long-run recoupment through expansion of the initial monopoly to systemically related markets. In his comment, Lawrence J. White maintains that the antitrust problems raised by Microsoft’s tactics are neither as new nor complex as Ordover and Willig suggest, but rather mirror one of the earliest issues in antitrust history–single railroad ownership and control of a bottleneck facility such as a monopolized stretch of track within a networked system of rail transportation.; Timothy F. Bresnahan utilizes an intriguing life cycle punctuated equilibrium model to analyze the nature of technological competition in the computer market. Monopolies such as Microsoft’s monopoly of microcomputer operating systems and Intel’s of microprocessor chips may arise from first mover advantages in introducing a major new innovation, from patenting of such a system, or from network dynamic economies of scale.

Whatever its source, the monopoly may persist for over a decade–aeons in the PC business (p. 158) in Bresnahan’s words. The monopolist will constantly be challenged by potential entrants and must keep abreast of minor technological improvements, but has overwhelming advantages in maintaining its position, including strategic entry barriers. This should not be of great concern to antitrust enforcers, as users’ switching costs are likely to outweigh the advantages of adopting new products incompatible with previous ones. However, occasionally these periods of stability will be shattered by quantum improvements in technology, and in these periods of epochal competition (p. 163) a new dominant firm may arise.

Bresnahan is highly skeptical that any sort of antitrust intervention can improve the industry’s performance, in large part due to powerful network forces creating and sustaining monopolistic positions and to the high switching costs that could be imposed on users by a policy artificially easing entry.; Benjamin Klein elaborates on one of the characteristics of industry structure identified by Katz and Shapiro: the very low marginal costs of software. He notes that the marginal cost of Microsoft’s browser is not only low, but negative, since a browser steers Internet users to specific web sites which can generate fee revenue. Thus, Microsoft’s willingness to provide its Explorer browser free of charge to original equipment manufacturers, or to bundle it with sales of Windows 95 and charge OEMs for permission to remove its icon, was not entirely motivated by a desire to exclude Navigator, as alleged by the Antitrust Division.; Utilizing an extremely interesting set of time series price data for semiconductors, computers, software and services, telecommunications equipment, and telecommunications services, Kenneth Flamm explores the feasibility and implications of the convergence of telephone, television, and computer access via the Internet (the network computer). On the basis of changes in relative prices of software, computer hardware, and communications hardware, he concludes that the short-run future of the network computer is in doubt, but convergence is quite possible. The threat to Microsoft’s monopoly of the PC operating system is dire.

If network computing is the next major technological breakthrough, the operating system will move from the desktop to the network, and Microsoft’s market power therein will become irrelevant.; A nagging question remains. Given the pace of technological development in the digital marketplace, should one bother to read this book now? The answer is yes- The appropriate role of antitrust in markets where the greatest welfare gains are expected to come from technological rather than price competition, and where product market boundaries are ephemeral, remains at least as pertinent and thought-provoking as it was in early 1998. Already biotechnology promises to be at least as economically significant as information technology. Standard Oil Company v. United States of America addressed the underlying antitrust issues facing the transition to an industrialized economy: United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation is dealing with an equally fundamental transformation.

Those concerned with this transformation will be stimulated and challenged by the informed and perceptive papers and comments found in this book. Bibliography no bib needed Economics.

Microsoft

Microsoft In the early 80s the world so the initial boom of the computer era. The first personal computers were sold and the main players of the business were sorted out. Two of the prominent figures were Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Each pioneering their own front, the two entered the 90s as the computer world celebrities. By the mid 90s each of these tycoons’ life had taken many turns and twists, albeit for the better usually. Bill Gates’ 1995 was a bit hectic, this was the year of the huge unveiling of windows 95. After many delayed attempts to get it out Gates released windows 95 in August without Microsoft Plus, as had been earlier said, this was due to time restrictions as changing windows 95 to 96 would be a waste of money and probably more seriously the worst move commercially any company would ever make.

With the release of Windows 95 the world saw the largest over media onslaught to sell a product. Also with the release of Windows came Microsoft’s foray into the Internet market share. In hindsight this perhaps may not have been the best move to make. 1996 passed with much criticism of Gates’ operating system, people said it was unstable, hard to figure out and anything else possible. 1997 came around with rumours of a new operating system in the works dubbed Chicago. This was perhaps a rumour but more likely the beginning of Windows 98.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

In 1998 Gates released this newer version of Windows 95, which made the world Gates’ subject for the biggest beta test ever. Windows 98 was just an upgrade of 95. Upgrade may be an understatement, but on the surface it is almost identical, underneath they are worlds apart. Recently Microsoft’s ghosts have come to haunt them. Netscape, their main rival in the Internet division, had started an Anti-trust case in the federal supreme court. The accusations spawned from a dispute where Netscape’s browser were being loaded onto pre made Compaq computers and Microsoft did not approve of this.

This case has recently come to the end of its first stage with Microsoft falling guilty. The consequences have yet to come, but are foreseen in the coming months. This most likely will not spell the end of Gates’ empire rather actually may boost his worth by making him CEO of 4 giant specialised companies. Steve Jobs, a cofounder of Apple Computers Inc., has also had good fortune with the computer world, but also had his fair share of hiccups. In 1985 after the Macintosh had had troubles selling as much as wished Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple.

From here he went on to try and rebuild a new frontier in media, 3D animation. After leaving Apple he formed a new company, Next Inc. this was a hardware/software development company. He then went on in 1986 to purchase a controlling share in Pixar, a LucasFilm branch that dealt with 3D animation. In 1989 Next released its first computer at $10,000 which was incompatible and did not sell well, 4 years later they shut down their hardware division. In 1996 Apple bought out Next.

Inc. and uses Jobs as a part time consultant. This aids Apple to become one of the top players in the world of computers in 1998. Some of Pixar’s achievements are; Toy Story, the first full length film created soley by computers. “A Bug’s Life” released and is a hit. And February 1999, Technical Academy Award to Pixar’s David DiFrancesco for “pioneering efforts in the development of laser film recording technology”.

These achievements of both these men have helped to fuel the second wave of the computer revolution. The third is on the horizon as the information superhighway’s potential will be seen in the next couple of years.

Microsoft

The current Microsoft antitrust case, still in progress as this review is being written, has been both hailed and condemned as the most important antitrust action of the coming century. Its potential significance has been compared to that of the Supreme Court’s 1911 Standard Oil decision, which not only applied for the first time the trust-busting power latent in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to break up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, but of at least equal importance enunciated the rule of reason on which judicial interpretation of the Sherman Act continues to be based. While none of this conference volume’s contributors develops this comparison, readers may come away from the book feeling that it is apt.; As noted in Lenard’s introduction and overview, there was general agreement among the conferees that the Microsoft case did not indicate any need for revision of existing antitrust laws. Yet the book identifies a paradox. Today’s computer industry has so many elements of natural monopoly–notably network effects and first-mover advantages–that the market will not work well if left to itself, yet it is far too complicated and fast moving to be regulated effectively. Antitrust is the only feasible policy option, but unless applied with skill and discretion, it may do more harm than good. In particular, consumer welfare is more likely to be enhanced by policy initiatives aimed at keeping the industry open to the introduction of major new technologies that might challenge the dominance of incumbents than by policies seeking to promote price competition among existing firms employing established technologies.; The paper by Michael L. Katz and Carl Shapiro discusses the fundamental economics of software markets, focusing, not surprisingly, on network effects, but also identifying and discussing the effects of the high set-up costs and low–even zero–marginal costs of software, the durability of software systems, and their rapid technological change. This paper’s treatment of network effects is sharply challenged in Timothy J. Muris’ comment, which argues that network effects comprise a model for which very few, if any, valid empirical examples exist.; Janusz A. Ordover and Robert D. Willig confront the basic question of whether or not there is any role for antitrust in high-tech markets. After reviewing competing arguments, they conclude that antitrust may be crucial in protecting long-run competition in innovation and that this should be its primary objective. Their particular concern is with bottlenecks such as Microsoft’s monopoly control of the operating system market, which is a crucial component of a broader system of computer use, including applications such as word processing and access to the Internet via browsers. They propose a three-pronged test to ascertain whether monopoly control of such a bottleneck exists and if so whether it is being used to exclude or restrain potential competitors from other markets in the system: i.e., are short-run profits being sacrificed by exclusionary tactics in the hope of long-run recoupment through expansion of the initial monopoly to systemically related markets. In his comment, Lawrence J. White maintains that the antitrust problems raised by Microsoft’s tactics are neither as new nor complex as Ordover and Willig suggest, but rather mirror one of the earliest issues in antitrust history–single railroad ownership and control of a bottleneck facility such as a monopolized stretch of track within a networked system of rail transportation.; Timothy F. Bresnahan utilizes an intriguing life cycle punctuated equilibrium model to analyze the nature of technological competition in the computer market. Monopolies such as Microsoft’s monopoly of microcomputer operating systems and Intel’s of microprocessor chips may arise from first mover advantages in introducing a major new innovation, from patenting of such a system, or from network dynamic economies of scale. Whatever its source, the monopoly may persist for over a decade–aeons in the PC business (p. 158) in Bresnahan’s words. The monopolist will constantly be challenged by potential entrants and must keep abreast of minor technological improvements, but has overwhelming advantages in maintaining its position, including strategic entry barriers. This should not be of great concern to antitrust enforcers, as users’ switching costs are likely to outweigh the advantages of adopting new products incompatible with previous ones. However, occasionally these periods of stability will be shattered by quantum improvements in technology, and in these periods of epochal competition (p. 163) a new dominant firm may arise. Bresnahan is highly skeptical that any sort of antitrust intervention can improve the industry’s performance, in large part due to powerful network forces creating and sustaining monopolistic positions and to the high switching costs that could be imposed on users by a policy artificially easing entry.; Benjamin Klein elaborates on one of the characteristics of industry structure identified by Katz and Shapiro: the very low marginal costs of software. He notes that the marginal cost of Microsoft’s browser is not only low, but negative, since a browser steers Internet users to specific web sites which can generate fee revenue. Thus, Microsoft’s willingness to provide its Explorer browser free of charge to original equipment manufacturers, or to bundle it with sales of Windows 95 and charge OEMs for permission to remove its icon, was not entirely motivated by a desire to exclude Navigator, as alleged by the Antitrust Division.; Utilizing an extremely interesting set of time series price data for semiconductors, computers, software and services, telecommunications equipment, and telecommunications services, Kenneth Flamm explores the feasibility and implications of the convergence of telephone, television, and computer access via the Internet (the network computer). On the basis of changes in relative prices of software, computer hardware, and communications hardware, he concludes that the short-run future of the network computer is in doubt, but convergence is quite possible. The threat to Microsoft’s monopoly of the PC operating system is dire. If network computing is the next major technological breakthrough, the operating system will move from the desktop to the network, and Microsoft’s market power therein will become irrelevant.; A nagging question remains. Given the pace of technological development in the digital marketplace, should one bother to read this book now? The answer is yes- The appropriate role of antitrust in markets where the greatest welfare gains are expected to come from technological rather than price competition, and where product market boundaries are ephemeral, remains at least as pertinent and thought-provoking as it was in early 1998. Already biotechnology promises to be at least as economically significant as information technology. Standard Oil Company v. United States of America addressed the underlying antitrust issues facing the transition to an industrialized economy: United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation is dealing with an equally fundamental transformation. Those concerned with this transformation will be stimulated and challenged by the informed and perceptive papers and comments found in this book.

Bibliography
no bib needed
Economics

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

Microsoft

violations. In October of this year, the government finally asked a judge to order Microsoft to stop requiring PC makers to include Internet Explorer when they install Windows 95 in their computers. Attorney General, Janet Reno, who referred to the company as a monopoly several times in her press conference, claimed that the company had violated the 1994 settlement, and that the Justice Department would seek a $1 million per day fine if they didn’t stop the practice. She said, This administration has taken great efforts to spur technological innovation, promote competition and make sure that the consumers have the ability to choose among competing products. This} action shows that we won’t tolerate any coercion by dominant companies in any way that distorts competition. (Labaton 2) The government’s petition seeks an order that would bar Microsoft from compelling PC manufacturers to accept their browser as a condition of receiving the OS, Windows 95. It also asks the court to order the company to notify Windows 95 users that they can use any compatible Internet Browser, as well as provide instructions on how to remove Internet Explorer from their computer. In response to the petition, Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman and chief executive, said that his company was not violating the antitrust agreement. He proclaimed his belief that his company had every right to improve and add to the basic features of the Windows OS. He went on to say that he hoped to further improve Windows by adding new capabilities, such as speech recognition and machine vision, to it. The Justice Department has several key issues that it has to deal with in its case against Microsoft. By deal with, I mean they have to get around Microsoft’s answers to their charges. First, the department is accusing the company of threatening computer makers who delete the Internet Explorer icon. The company answers this by claiming that “…computer manufacturers are free to ship any competitor product they wish, but they are not allowed to disable features of our products,” (Just Dept v MS 2). Second, the government is contending that the terms of Microsoft’s non-disclosure agreements are an obstacle in the way of their attempts to gather evidence for their investigation. Microsoft says that their non-disclosure agreements are no different than those of most companies within the software industry, as well as outside it. Finally, there is the matter of the competitive browser possibly representing a threat to Microsoft’s key product, its operating system. Company officials claim that by not allowing them to include their browser with Windows, the government is preventing innovation. They say that the pace of the competition will quickly pummel a company that stops innovating, and that the consumers win because competition drives firms to deliver better products at lower prices. In essence, Microsoft is claiming that by not allowing them to include the browser, the government is stifling the competition that it is trying to protect. Orin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held the first of what he claimed would be several hearings on the Microsoft antitrust petition in the first week of November. At this hearing, the Senator produced an exclusivity agreement between Microsoft and Earthlink Network, Inc. It called for Earthlink to offer only Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and prohibits them from implying that another browser is available. “’What you have set forth appears to be a classic example of an artificial entry barrier. It is not designed to enhance the product. It is designed simply to hobble the competitor’ said Kevin Arquit (former general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission),” (Clausing…Senator). Since the hearing, Microsoft has asked a federal judge to throw the government’s petition out. They filed their response to the Justice Departments allegations with Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (the same judge that signed the antitrust settlement two years earlier). The company is claiming that the government’s case is without base, is implausible and is a perversion of the truth. According to what their claims, the original decree allows them to develop integrated products. The response also claims that the company “…realized long before Netscape was even a company that Microsoft needed to build this type of functionality into Windows for consumers,” (Clausing…Microsoft 2). Netscape was founded in 1994. The first version of Internet Explorer wasn’t released until July of 95, and that was a limited beta version. Where does all of this leave us? Do any of these allegations have merit? Is this software giant a monopoly? If so, how are we going to be affected by it? At the time of this essay, no answers have been provided to the questions brought forth by the government’s allegations. However, it is my belief that Microsoft has met all the requirements necessary for the antitrust laws to be implemented. The consumers are in need of protection. This company has attained more than a dominant share of all sectors of the software markets. It has merged with many smaller companies; it has tied their products to one another, and is about as vertically integrated as one could imagine within the context of the software industry. This corporation seemingly goes out of its way to eliminate competition and block entry to the market. Consumers suffer because of this company and its practices, and I think it is high time that the government steps in and allows the antitrust laws to serve their purpose.
Music Essays

x

Hi!
I'm Lily

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out