I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding Microsoft anti-trust case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. My opinion, admittedly not a popular one, is one of no violation on the part of the Microsoft Corporation. My decision is based upon review of evidence in the case as well as trends in the competitive marketplace. Described and detailed in the subsequent paragraphs are the contributing factors involved in the construction of my decision dealing with the charges brought against the Microsoft Corporation. The factors deal with the charges themselves as well as the condition of the relative market as a result of the actions or practices engaged in by the Microsoft Corporation.
             The first body of factors that my opinion deals with is the charges brought against the Microsoft Corporation (to be herein referred to as MC). In order for the MC to be found guilty the court must find that they were in fact violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, by engaging in a course of exclusionary conduct to protect and maintain its personal computer (PC) operating system monopoly; that the MC violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, by attempting to monopolize the Market for Web browsers; that the MC violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by tying its Internet Explorer Web browser to its Windows operating system through contracts and technological artifices (Source: No.00-261 In the Supreme Court of the United Sates - State of New York ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al., petitioners v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.).
             In my opinion the MC did not engage in exclusionary conduct to protect and maintain its personal computer operating system monopoly. When congress passed the
             Sherman Act in 1890 the issues of monopoly power were obvious. A monopolist might restrict the availability supply and raise the prices. Competition meant price competition and the antitrust laws w...