The Microsoft Antitrust Case - Essay Example

The Microsoft Antitrust Case The Microsoft Antitrust case is one of the most popular issues in today's market. This is primarily due to the popularity of the company's products and the global reach of the company. Various issues and allegations were brought up by different personalities and entities. In a way, the case versus the software giant is the product of the collaboration between the United States government and the various players in the compute industry that have been affected by Microsoft's dominance in today's computer market.
The table below presents the various stakeholders or key entities and personalities in the case against Microsoft. It highlights the various issues that these groups share against Microsoft.
Other software and PC Makers
**
**
**
**
**
--------
19 states
**
**
**
**
----------
**
DOJ
**
**
**
--------
**
**
RealNetworks
***
*
---------------
**
**
**
Sun Microsystems
*
-------------
**
**
**
Netscape
--------
*
***
**
**
**
Netscape
Sun Microsystems
RealNetworks
DOJ
19 States
Other software and PC Makers
LEGEND
* Microsoft attempted to sabotage companies that they saw as posing a competitive threat. Real Networks' Real Player was said to be a threat to Microsoft's Windows Media Player while Sun Microsystems' Java language was said to be seen as a threat to the Windows Operating system.
** Microsoft has taken monopolistic measures to drive competitors off the market.
*** Microsoft bundles applications with its Windows operating system that renders third part producers of such software powerless. By bundling the Internet Explorer and the Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system, Microsoft has limited the share of RealNetworks and Netscape in their respective market segments.
As the table above shows, the Microsoft Anti-trust case involves various entities that each has their own issues to bring against Microsoft. This scenario makes the resolution of the case more complex and difficult. A resolution that 2 parties may find appealing may not be adequate for another party. Therefore, finding a settlement for the issues at hand require large amounts of time, effort, and patience form all the parties involved as well as from the mediator who would handle the negotiations.
If I was to serve as a third-party mediator in the settlement negotiations of the antitrust case against Microsoft, the first thing I would do is to call on each and every personality or party involved. This may seem like a tedious task but I believe that it is necessary because I would want to hear each side in the story. No two parties are to appear in front of me at the same time not until I see it fit or proper. Once I have heard the statements of everyone involved, I would then ask them to cite and list down all the issues they would have against the opposing party. Furthermore, I would ask them to put a recommended solution for each of the issues that they have listed down. Once all of the parties have come up with their own list of issues and recommendations, I would personally go over these lists and determine the points of contention between the opposing parties. It is only at this point that I will call for closed-door meetings between all involved groups. The goal of this meeting is to arrive at the most logical resolution that is agreeable to all the parties involved. The meeting will be of an open forum sort wherein all opinions are valued. When an issue is pointed out, another part may respond to this by saying its piece. Basically, the settlement of the issue will come from no one else but the parties involved themselves. It will not be my duty to come up with a resolution. Instead, I would merely act as the facilitator of the discussions.
References:
Economides, Nicholas. The Microsoft Antitrust Case. 2 Apr. 2001. New York University, Stern. 17 Feb. 2006, .
Gilbert, Howard. Technical Perspective on US v. Microsoft. 17 Jan. 2003. Technology and Planning, Yale University. 17 Feb. 2006, .
"United States v. Microsoft." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Feb 2006. 17 Feb 2006, . Read More