Microsoft Monopoly
Roll the dice and watch the hat bounce from one space to another, as the player assists the hat with the inevitable completion of it's ultimate voyage. The voyage of owning all of the properties, funds, real-estate, and strategically putting all the other players into bankruptcy to finish this challenge of becoming the winner, or monopolist. Bill Gates of the Microsoft Corporation has played this game, and he has played it well. The inevitable government intervention, that our modified market economy creates, just like victims before the current Microsoft Corp.'s monopoly, such as Standard Oil, or AT&T both of which were proven to be a monopoly under the Anti-Trust Act, and action was to taken to remedy the situation so the monopolistic structure of these companies would not continue for consumer benefit. In these two cases the pre-determined verdicts were correct from the beginning of the trial. Both companies were true monopolies and unfair, to the consumer, tactics were being invoked in a system were competition was not a member of the dictionary. Microsoft, however, has not committed any felonious acts against the consumer. If a consumer was not happy then why would the consumer go back and buy the latest versions of th
Goetz, A. Martin. "The Government has to Stop Microsoft Now." Computerworld, The case that was recently against Microsoft, the Anti-trust case, found them guilty of being in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. "The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition," (www.law.cornell.edu). In this case Gates' company was proven to have committed a few substantially backed up things that might attribute to a monopoly, but still it does not mean Microsoft is a monopoly especially since they do not use manipulative monopolistic tactics. It was proven that Windows 98 runs slower with IE bundled with the Windows 98 OS, but even if it was not bundled the consumer would still obtain a copy of IE if that is what he preferred to use as his browser. It was also said that it posed possible security risks, what a person must understand is that the Internet is a big security risk all by itself. If you are important enough of a person that somebody is out to get you and attack you electronically, then they will. They will do whatever steps they can to achieve their goal, despite the fact that someone might have IE or Netscape or whatever that person is using on the Internet they will get them, browser or not (Penfield 60). The courts felt they had substantial reasons, and they probably were right in calling Microsoft a monopoly under written circumstances. On unwritten terms and if you looked beyond the papers and the facts, people would see Microsoft was a company trying to make things better, of course, making a profit for themselves, but overall bettering things for the consumer with its ease of use, or more power and faster operation Microsoft was their to make that happen, and if they would not have stepped in the changes might have never been made. Moschella, David. "Few Escapes for Netscape". Computerworld, Jan 19, 1998 v32 Michael-Hayes, Garett. "Windows 2000 directory gains ground on NetWare, Unix".
Some common words found in the essay are:
IE Netscape, Anti-Trust Act, Bill Gates, Windows Operating, Operating Systems, Sherman Act, Operating System, Excel Access, Point Windows, , operating system, microsoft monopoly, web browser, operating systems, ie netscape, windows operating, bill gates, windows operating system, company monopoly, windows 2000 directory, directory gains, 2000 directory, personal computer market, business tactics generate, michael-hayes garett windows,
Approximate Word count = 2646
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
