"They lost in the market place against a competitor that in no way was at that time even remotely a monopoly."
Duke, the first part of Judge Jackson's fact finding document establishes that Microsoft had more than the critical 70 percent of the market - the point which defines what a monopoly is in the eyes of the law. In fact, Jackson goes farther and shows that MSFT had at least 80 percent of the market. I had an opportunity to use OS-2 and found that it was robust, rarely crashed, but also lacked software applications, which is what killed it. MSFT didn't help. Worse, MSFT, in deciding IBM was a competitor, delayed in granting a license to IBM, forcing IBM to miss the back to college season. Even if the present case goes no farther than it has, the court, through its examination of documents supplied mostly from Microsoft itself, has established a strong basis for IBM to sue for tortious interference with its business.
When people say that MSFT did nothing wrong or nothing that other companies wouldn't do or actually do, the difference between other companies and MSFT is that the evidence supports a finding that MSFT is a monopoly. Monopolies are treated differently from smaller companies. That's what the Sherman Antitrust Law is about. And that's why Judge Bork, perhaps the most conservative judge this country has seen in the last 20 years, believes that MSFT violated the antitrust law. |
