|
''United States v. Microsoft Corporation'' (253 F.3d 34 ) (D.C. Cir. 2001) is a U.S. antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct. Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft's position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies. Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ one is focused less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barrier to entry.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=The Microsoft case by the numbers: comparison between U.S. and E.U. )〕 ==History== By 1984 Microsoft was one of the most successful software companies, with $55 million in 1983 sales. ''InfoWorld'' wrote that it The U.S. government's interest in Microsoft began in 1991 with an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission over whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly on the PC operating system market. The commissioners deadlocked with a 2–2 vote in 1993 and closed the investigation, but the Department of Justice opened its own investigation on August 21 of that year, resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which, in addition to OEM versions of Windows 95, appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact )〕) was not a ''product'' but a ''feature'' which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition. In its 2008 Annual Report, Microsoft stated:〔(Microsoft Corporation Form 10-K Annual Report ) for fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. (pg. 14) Retrieved June 18, 2010. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5wljFnWpp)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Microsoft Corp.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|