Microsoft and the question of monopoly; judge injects a note of skepticism into tenet of company's defense
Article Abstract:
The judge presiding over the Justice Department's antitrust suit against Microsoft Corp. directed queries to Microsoft witness, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Richard L. Schmalensee, concerning the prices the software maker charges for the Windows operating system. Schmalensee was asserting that prices for the o.s., usually about 5% of the cost of a personal computer, reflect concerns about the possibility of competition. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson interrupted to ask whether Microsoft might be charging less to hook consumers on its operating system as a tobacco company might charge less in order to hook future smokers. Schmalensee expressed doubt in such a comparison. The judge's questions are studied by both sides in the case as indications of his reasoning, since he will be deciding its outcome. Microsoft argues that its dominance is under threat in the fast moving software industry and that its practices are to maintain its leadership. The government's argument that Microsoft is a monopoly is based on the fact that Windows is the operating system in 90% of all computers. It asserts that its low cost is an effort to rope in consumers to Windows on their first computers because they will be unlikely to switch later to unfamiliar software. Microsoft's status as a monopoly is not a question before the court but, if Microsoft can prove it is not a monopoly, the government has no case.
Publication Name: The New York Times
Subject: Business, general
ISSN: 0362-4331
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Judge in Microsoft case tries to cut through jargon as he questions witnesses
Article Abstract:
US District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson capped a day of escalating tensions by asking questions in the Government's antitrust trial against Microsoft on Nov 5, 1998. Jackson first rebuked Microsoft attorney Theodore Edelman, who was cross-examining Apple executive Avadis Tevanian Jr. The first question from Jackson asked Tevanian to distinguish bundling and integrating software with an OS. Tevanian said Apple had learned through its own experience that bundling was less complicated and less expensive than product integration. Jackson then asked Tevanian whether a company can benefit in any way from product integration, and that it may prove detrimental. Tevanian affirmed the question, then testified to additional questions from Jackson on how Apple removed its Cyberdog Web browser from its Mac OS without damaging the Mac OS. Jackson earlier in the day scolded Edelman several times for misleading questions and misrepresenting Tevanian's testimony.
Publication Name: The New York Times
Subject: Business, general
ISSN: 0362-4331
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Microsoft gathers its allies to attack what it dismissed: network computers. Microsoft, Sony plan partnership in multimedia area
- Abstracts: Apple announces big loss and plans further layoffs; future of company is tied to Internet. Compaq's stock falls on results; drop spurs decline in technology area
- Abstracts: Compuserve changes focus to home office and businesses. Judge rules that Prodigy is liable for user comments. Prodigy sees quick growth from Internet Web service
- Abstracts: Silicon Graphics to buy makers of special-effects software tools. Hewlett-Packard discloses chip flaw in some of its workstations, servers
- Abstracts: IBM to form consumer-products unit with aim of rejuvenating Aptiva line. IBM tries, and fails, to fix PC business