Microsoft and the Government

In terms of Microsoft’s production and revenue change during the anti-trust settlement, they have been negligibly hurt. Although, one can argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly and does indeed have competition, but the main charge against the corporation rose to the top by mandating computer makers to install the Explorer browser if they want to install the Windows operating system, thus eliminating the competition in the browser market. Although Microsoft products might be better, especially when using them intertwined with one another, the elimination of competition - intended or not - is never to the benefit of the consumers. Peter Ashkin, a former Gateway official and an executive at Red Hat, testified on March 21, 2002, “that loopholes in the proposed settlement make ‘meaningful change’ in the market unlikely. Justice Department and attorney generals from 18 states said that Microsoft had used its monopoly in computer operating systems to force computer makers to use it Internet Explorer browser instead of Netscape Navigator” (Bray). In the summer of 2000, the federal courts did indeed find that the Microsoft, Corp. But, when there is no longer competition with Microsoft in any fields in the computer industry, then the consumers will be left with no choice but to support Microsoft no matter what happens.