In the US, the businesses are regulated by the antitrust law, which promotes and maintains healthy competition as well as controlling anti-competitive business tactics by other companies. Microsoft has fallen victim of antitrust claims in several occasions. As the United States software giant, the company has settled several antitrust claims with competitors, yet others still crop up.
However, the validity of the claims elicits streams of arguments from various concerned and affected groups. This comes at a time when the federal appeals court declined to restrain the power of national attorneys general to sue companies (Mallor et al. 2010). Such injunction comes in place of the public for unproven antitrust defilement devoid of raising class action on court case limitations.
The question of Antitrust claims against Microsoft software runs back to mid-1990. The software giant had been allegedly charged by the United States Justice Department’s antitrust suit for subjecting its competitor, IBM, under discriminatory pricing as well as overcharging practices.
The situation presented a stiff competitive niche to IBM. Ultimately, the settlement of the case resulted in payment of over $700 million to IBM. On the other hand, $75 was paid to the software giant as credit (Masnick 2010).
It seems everyone is on Microsoft with regard to antitrust claims. The long antitrust accusation against the software giant has a significant impression to the company’s reputation irrespective of the fact that they result in remarkably little impact. Of course, the little impacts may offer the expiation why Microsoft has attachments to the recent antitrust claims against both Google and IBM.
According to Masnick (2010), antitrust claims against Google and IBM reveal that Microsoft had a significant contribution in it, although it played it underground. However, Microsoft has made steps inform its employees of the antitrust laws. According to Microsoft Watch, eweeks newsbreak (2009) will again be charged $2.5 million for coming in breach to the European Union due to its failure to give documentation on Windows’ inner workings.
The validity of these claims falls in either side of justice. Of course, the law and demands by the authorities ought to be followed to the latter. However, the fact that such actions strive to create standardized competition will make it possible for all players of the industry to compete on one level.
Every company wants to have a competitive edge, which pushes many companies, to come up with effective mechanisms to survive in the market. As such, it becomes fair that every business should strive to survive in the market (Mallor et al. 2010).
A company should also endeavor to reach its objectives, which include, profit maximization, cost minimization, as well as expanding the market. Therefore, I fall to the admission that such advances are just since the companies they are pushed by the market. However, the extent to which such companies put out their mechanisms is not known.
As such, companies may advance to put up mechanisms that will exit other companies from the market. Ultimately, unlike private litigants, the lawyers overall reserve the power of statutory authority to sue in place of state citizens and may not require to make evident they had damages as well as to the public (DeCarlo 2003). It is worthwhile to note that some decisions are necessary to manage circumstances.
References
DeCarlo, D. (2003, January). Exclusive remedy in a nutshell. CBS Interactive, Inc. Web.
Mallor, J., Barnes, A., Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. (2010). Business law: The ethical, global and e-commerce environment. (14th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Masnick M, (2010). Is Microsoft Behind Antitrust Claims Against Pretty Much Everyone Else Now? Retrieved from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/18221910441.shtml
Microsoft Watch, eweek Newsbreak (2006). Microsoft Warns Employees of Likely Antitrust Fine. Retrieved from https://www.eweek.com/news/microsoft-warns-employees-of-likely-antitrust-fine