QUESTION #3: MARCH 27, 2020
In the court case with Microsoft and the US government, why do you think Microsoft didn't have to follow through with the court's verdict and get broken up? Do you agree with the argument that Microsoft used throughout the case “the technology industry is so competitive, that no player can truly be monopolistic”?
I think that Microsoft was so powerful that they were, in a way, above the decision. I dont necessarily agree with the reasoning but I think it makes a good point of just how comeptetive the market was.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Microsoft being "above" the ruling. It stinks, but they had a lot of power which they could easily use to skirt around doing things they didn't want to.
DeleteI think this was because the government wanted to move past the issue with their new administration so it was swept under the rug. I don't agree with their statement because they were able to chase Netscape off of the platform it was on but as time went on I do think it became less easy to be so monopolistic. So, at the time they made the statement I don't agree.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the new Bush administration was not going to bring up the lawsuit and start the whole argument again, so Microsoft was easily able to get away without splitting into pieces. It makes me wonder if they had split up, would they just start monopolizing two industries instead of one?
DeleteMicrosoft was such a powerhouse that they would have been able to do it, or at least take predominant market share
DeleteMicrosoft didn't have to follow the verdict, they were so powerful that they could've ignored it completely. I think that the argument that Microsoft used was a good one. Technology gets to the point where only one person can exist on top of the food chain and eventually take down the competitors. I may not agree, but I can understand.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that now their statement still applies?
DeleteI agree that technology is ever changing so it's really hard to say if anyone is monopolizing the industry.
DeleteIMHO Apple took over from Microsoft for awhile after they released the iPhone, but I also think Microsoft was right in that the leader of the tech field at a certain time is fairly fluid. These days you could make an argument that Google is the Microsoft of this decade.
DeleteHannah - No, it's hard to monopolize the internet since there are so many new players becoming involved. It's different now.
DeleteI think when they appealed the ruling, they were probably very forceful and used some of their vast resources, and when leadership in the country changed, the issue fading to the background. I disagree with Microsoft's statement. A monopoly happens when one business is dominating the industry. While other competition existed, none had much of a chance because of how big Microsoft was.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Microsoft did overpower the chances other companies had to succeed in the same way that Microsoft had.
DeleteI agree that Microsoft was dominating the industry of the time, but it was not at all obvious that they would dominate Internet industries of the future.
Deletegood point elliot... can't predict the future
DeleteI believe they didn't have to follow through with the court verdict because they had enough power for very good lawyers to fight the verdict, (and perhaps some corruption in the court system). I don't agree with Microsoft's case because while the technology industry can be extremely competitive for newcomers, Microsoft already had a massive hold on the marked and was one of its strongest members.
ReplyDeleteI second that they had enough power to fight with good lawyers and Microsoft was already above, which may be why they said that no company can truly monopolize, so that they were able protect their company and make it easier for them to exist without the threat of being torn apart.
DeleteI agree that they must have been able to afford good lawyers and that they didn't have to split due to their power. I also think that Microsoft had a very big hold on the market because they were able to overtake the small companies.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts about the statement. While it's true that competition existed, Microsoft was on top. If you think about it in modern day, google chrome comes to mind. By Microsoft's reasoning, Google wouldn't have a monopoly on the browser industry, because other browsers exist. But can the majority of people name those other browsers? And if you can, do you use them? Probably not.
DeleteI think the reason Microsoft didn't split into two was because they knew that their company would not thrive and they were able to get away with it because of their monopoly over the industry. When Bush became president, the whole lawsuit died down and Microsoft was able to slip through the cracks. I don't agree with their argument that they weren't a monopoly because Microsoft was clearly too powerful for even the US government to take down, so it was impossible for other companies to compete.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you are saying, but I find it interesting how Microsoft has the power to take on the US government, but would fall apart if it got split in two. Something doesn't add up with that.
DeleteThe government at the time was also dealing with the fallout of 9/11 so may have made a strategic decision not to pursue Microsoft and waste resources.
DeleteI don't agree with the statement, because although the industry was competitive, bigger companies, such as Microsoft, were still on top. Microsoft didn't have to follow through because were so strong and relevant that they were able to overpower, and they believed they were truly still the same company.
ReplyDeleteI think because Gates was so rich and Microsoft was so successful, the court let Microsoft off easily. I agree with his argument to some extent because there were so many companies at this time that it couldn't be totally monopolistic. However, I do feel like Microsoft had such a large part of the market, that this statement was sort of a lie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the verdict. I think that companies and individuals with a lot of money don't have to abide by the same rulings and consequences that others do.
Deleteyeah definitely, they were just trying to cover their butt
Delete^anabell
Deleteanabell-i think that the government valued big business too much and microsoft had too much power to get broken up, even if it was better for the market. i agree with the argument on some levels, because the market is always shifting but they were at the top of the game in so many feild they were definitely a monopoly
ReplyDeleteI agree. The fact that Microsoft was able to get away with not listening to the court's verdict to get broken up shows the domination they had.
DeleteI think that Microsoft was so powerful at this time so they did not have to follow through with the verdict, they already had all the control over the industry so it was too late. I don't agree with Microsoft's statement because they were the ones who had a monopoly over the rest of the industry at this time and no competition stood a chance against them. Maybe they were trying to hide the fact that they were the monopoly by releasing this statement even though they knew that they were?
ReplyDeleteI think that Microsoft was such a successful company at the time that Microsoft was let off more easily than another company might have been. I somewhat agree with his statement because so many companies were in existence and being used that holding a monopoly would be unrealistic. However, Microsoft obviously dominated much of the market as seen with them overpowering Netscape. This statement was somewhat untrue for this reason, but I can understand where Gates is coming from.
ReplyDeleteI think that the case was dispersed because of the pop of the dot-com bubble. The Internet was changing. It was obvious that Microsoft didn't need to split, as they probably would not lead the web browser industry for much longer. I agree with the statement that Microsoft made, and believe it was the main reason for the ending of the case.
ReplyDeleteI think Microsoft did not have to follow through because they were so well established and Bill Gates created a name for himself and his company. The people of Microsoft knew their company best and continued to do what they wanted. I understand where Microsoft was coming from in their statement because of how quickly the internet was changing and expanding, but Microsoft did dominate the industry at the time of the trial.
ReplyDeleteThe case was settled on November 1, 2001. Think about that date. Did the government have other things to worry about at the time? Perhaps they didn't pursue Microsoft for a reason...
ReplyDeleteThey were probably more concerned with terrorism surrounding 9/11
Delete9/11 was a major event that the country was dealing with and the government didn't want to waste resources on trying to take down Microsoft.
DeleteExactly. That's what I was trying to get across in my responses above.
DeleteWow. I didn't even think about how 9/11 would have impacted this case.
DeleteAnd by the time they could look at breaking Microsoft up again (around 2008), they weren't nearly the powerhouse they once were.
DeleteYeah I mean there was definitely some other major problems in the world at that time, what with 9/11 being so close in proximity to that date.
DeleteYeah. I think Microsoft avoided breaking up, and didn't have to for long because of the climate of the world. There were bigger issues that the government needed to focus on.
DeleteInteresting how timing and prioritization can play such a large role.
Deleteoh true, 9/11 definitely occupied everyones mind
DeleteI think that that probably played a huge factor because there were definitely other things that had their priority big time
DeleteThe Dept. of Defense also uses a lot of Microsoft based projects (esp. back then), so the government harassing Microsoft would not have helped the "war on terror".
DeleteThey were definitely side tracked with 9/11 and let Microsoft slide, as they had other things to worry about.
Delete^anabell
DeleteThe government didn't have time to deal with Microsoft, they definitely had other things to deal with.
Delete