MICROSOFT: BUSINESS AS USUAL?

January 21, 1998
		As a Department of Justice began to investigate anti-trust allegations against software giant Microsoft, The Online NewsHour conducted this forum, asking if Microsoft was a monopoly or just a result of smart business decisions.

Forum introduction What laws are involved in this dispute? Are Microsoft's practices monopolistic? What is an operating system? Why doesn't the Justice Department let the market play out? Can competition and integration co-exist? What are the larger issues in this case? Viewer comments     Online NewsHour Special Report: The Microsoft Anti-Trust Case Nov. 12, 1998: A discussion on the case against Microsoft. April 14, 1998: Is Microsoft using its power to stifle competition? March 3, 1998: Leaders of the computer industry testified against Microsoft. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of cyberspace and business     Department of Justice's information on U.S vs. Microsoft. The Department of Justice Microsoft

In what has become a heated and protracted anti-trust battle, Microsoft and the Justice Department appear to have fundamentally different views of what's monopolistic practices. Although their current dispute is over the bundling of Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, with Windows 95 -- giving Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser market, according to the Justice department -- the government's feud with Microsoft actually dates back to 1990. In June 1990, the Federal Trade Commission launched a probe investigating possible collusion between the software giant and IBM, and it's been like dueling banjos ever since. In 1993, Microsoft was brought to task by both the U.S. government and the European Commission over its alleged practice of forcing hardware manufacturers into restrictive licensing agreements. Essentially, it is claimed Microsoft was dictating to manufacturers what software they could include in pre-loaded computers. Microsoft disputes this. Microsoft signed a consent decree in 1995 that stated it would not use its dominant share in the PC operating systems market to create additional monopolies, but by November 1997, it was claiming it "retains unfettered freedom" to add new functions to Windows -- like a Web browser. Companies such as Netscape claim this practice squashes competition. And although Microsoft says "nonsense," a user can still choose any browser he or she prefers as their default browser, the Justice department says Microsoft is in contempt, and a federal judge placed an order to unbundle Explorer from Windows 95. Microsoft retaliated, saying that the judge that approved the bundling injunction was dealing with matters beyond his "jurisdiction and comprehension." But shortly thereafter, sensing a backlash of public opinion, Microsoft issued a formal apology to the judge and the Justice department on January 8, 1998. Microsoft still maintains its right to package products the way it wants, however, and awaits its day in court. Microsoft is also now facing anti-trust action in Japan. Is what's good for Microsoft good for technology? Is the government protecting consumers, or Microsoft's competitors? Should the same anti-trust laws apply to software and steel? Is what's good for Microsoft good for technology? Is the government protecting consumers, or Microsoft's competitors? Should the same anti-trust laws apply to software and steel? Edward Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and Charles Rule, an attorney and consultant for Microsoft and a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust respond to viewer questions and comments.