How is microsoft not a monopoly

Further and with the influence of corporate legal teams in mind, we would also have to see significant movement among the ranks of their internal and external council in order to justify the type of systemic change that Microsoft is purporting. But rather than changing their legal team from a crack team specializing in beating back anti-trust allegations around the world, Microsoft kept many of the same lawyers on their payroll that bailed them out of their anti-trust woes both domestically and abroad.

They even promoted Brad Smith, the Jose Baez of anti-trust, to the president role of the company. Meanwhile, Microsoft still continues to retain Bill Gates Sr. On top of needing a new wave of non-figurehead executives, employees, and lawyers to justify the amount of change that Microsoft is purporting though, they would also need entirely new products as well. Sure, they have cloud solutions now, but these are merely a new means to the same old Microsoft end and could not stand on their own without being attached to their same old legacy solutions.

In turn, these same products also exist as case studies for the market phenomenon known as lock-in where products become so entrenched in an organization that they become too expensive to migrate to better solutions just as they always have. Functioning more like a glass ceiling, Windows and Office products masterfully entrench themselves throughout organizations despite objectively better and more cost-effective solutions existing under most circumstances.

Ironically, there are few if any objective measures that would predict Microsoft products to exist as clear front-runners in any major market.

But rather than building better products, they have chosen to dope them up by optimizing them for lock-in so to prevent customers from leaving their platforms at the expense of utility. In fact, such tactics are anti-correlated with an ethical monopoly and no one can optimize products for lock-in and utility simultaneously because of this.

To no surprise, the same products also require the same partner network to prop them up and install them throughout industry. Since Microsoft products also tend to generate the greatest amount of ownership costs over the lifetime of their products, they are also the most profitable ecosystem for consultants to offer management and support solutions for. Although Microsoft only generates billion or whatever a year in revenue, their products create a multi-trillion dollar maintenance and support burden spanning all of industry throughout the world which is eclipsed by the collective productivity loss incurred from using their products in the first place.

In turn, this market is serviced primarily by Microsoft partners, underfunded and change averse sys admins, managed services providers and consultants, who often benefit from the job security, initial commission and residual income from long-term support, and management contracts spanning the product lifecycle with their clients and employers.

Instead, they have to be structured in a manner to artificially limit quality and foster lock-in while obtaining their best work from them; like an operational ruse, many engineers are blind to these objectives.

One last consequence of engineering a money machine in such a manner is that as products become more defective, consequently less desirable, and prone to lock-in they also become incredibly expensive to market than they would otherwise be. Another habit of evil monopolies is that they also tend to acquire new products rather than innovating internally.

Microsoft hits all the necessities and requirements, and has the best compatibility compared to Apple. This incident could have been averted, had video game developers taken more care and showed more pride in their products.

Windows vs. MAC vs. Linux 8 secure, but the only other real benefit is that Apple does not populate a large percentage of the PC marketplace. Apple used to encourage this way of thinking, but after the Flashback virus Perlroth, , they decided it was no t a good idea to lie to their customers.

Since malware really only exploits existing bugs or holes in an operating system, it is up to Apple to fix those holes, and they do a pretty good job of it. But in any case, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Microsoft refused the charges, arguing it had succeeded through product innovation and lawful business performs. Microsoft opposed it should not be punished for its excellent forethought, business insight, and technological ability. It also stated that its monopoly was highly temporary because of fast technological development.

The District Court Findings In June district court directed that the related market was software used to run Intel compatible personal computers PCs. Home Page Microsoft Not a Monopoly. Microsoft Not a Monopoly Satisfactory Essays. Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality.

I believe that Microsoft has the best intensions for society, because they are constantly developing the software market into a more competitive and challenging industry. The first reason Microsoft is not a monopoly is because of the standardized quality of its OS.

Second is the intelligent business practices Microsoft has engaged in through many of its business partners. The legal issues of the alleged antitrust accusations from the department of justice are just totally overrated. The standardized quality of MS Windows98 has really made the PC market as a whole take a rocket boost from the past.

This is fiction because people choose products that are simply reliable and of good quality. It is physically impossible for any individual or company to be its controlling switch, as the number of Internet users continue to grow by easy access due to Internet technologies being added to quality operating systems such as Windows.

See related story. Today's hearing, dubbed "Market Power and Structural Change in the Software Industry," turned out to be more of a national platform for Microsoft and its political opponents than a broad examination of the high-tech industry. The hearing was called by Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah , chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who in the past has been critical of the software giant's business practices.

Gates, who sat next to McNealy on the panel, appeared relaxed and earnest during much of the testimony, despite the subject matter of the hearing. The chairman of the world's most powerful software company agreed to make the extraordinary congressional appearance to defend his empire. Microsoft can do neither. He called it preposterous to think that a single company, even one as dominant as Microsoft, could control access to the Internet: "I can say without hesitation that it is not, nor has it ever been, the intention of my company to turn the information superhighway into a toll road.

Responding to questions later in the hearing, Gates said it is impossible for Microsoft to hold a monopoly in a market where products are conceived, marketed, and buried "in the span of a senator's" term. Few participants, however, appeared to agree.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Hatch said, "We heard that Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. Even panelist Stewart Alsop, a venture capitalist who defended Microsoft on a number of key issues, said Microsoft holds a monopoly on PC operating system software.

Expressing an opinion that contrasted sharply with most of the other panelists and committee members--who stressed that current antitrust laws were adequate to rein in Microsoft--Alsop added: "I suspect that we may need some new precedent in the law. Today's hearing marked Gates's first appearance before Congress.

His remarks are being scrutinized closely as Microsoft continues to battle the perception that it has been arrogant and disrespectful in responding to the antitrust investigation headed by the Justice Department and supported by some two-dozen state attorneys general.

Those characterizations were not apparent at first. But, once the question-and-answer session started, Gates became more defiant. In one of the most heated moments of the hearing, Hatch told Gates he was hard to nail down on one specific question relating to content partners for Microsoft's active channels--a push technology that delivers information automatically to users' desktops.