OS). "By definition, if the OS maker creates applications, they will run better with the OS than a third party's, and the OS owner can, over time, create modifications that will make this even more so," (Rapacious 1). Microsoft has the power to leverage their dominance in operating systems (Microsoft currently has its Windows software in over 90% of all PCs) to gain a large market share in the various application sectors. They have always been able to do this and as a result have been able to get, or achieve, whatever it is that they have wanted. This is the vertical integration that the antitrust laws talk about.
             In a July 1994, settlement, the Justice Department came to an agreement with the software giant over the antitrust charges it had filed against the company. The charges were brought after the department found out that Microsoft was giving personal computer manufacturers a discount on their OS when the PC manufacturer would pay the company a royalty for each computer sold, including those without MS-DOS or Windows software installed. "The practice gave PC makers little incentive to install competing programs since they would have had to pay a royalty to both the competitor and Microsoft," (Ramstad 1). The settlement only dealt with this single count and left Microsoft alone to continue performing its numerous other anti-competitive practices.
             In the spring of 1995, Judge Stanley Sporkin rejected the deal that the Justice Department settled on. He did so on the grounds that:
             1. The government refused to give the court enough information about the agreement;
             2. The deal was too narrow; it failed to deal with issues like OS/application leverage, and allegations that Microsoft intentionally made changes to Windows that made third party applications hard to run;
             3. The parties did not adequately consider anti-competitive issues;
             4. The deal was unsatisfactory when it came to enforceme...