United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here : Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) and Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) Case Number : United States Of America and State of New York Plaintiff : Microsoft Corporation Defendant : November 5, 1999 Filing Date : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Location TABLE OF LINKS FINDINGS OF FACT I. BACKGROUND II. THE RELEVANT MARKET A. Demand Substitutability 1. Server Operating Systems 2. Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems 3. Information Appliances 4. Network Computers 5. Server-Based Computing Generally 6. Middleware B. The Possibility of Supply Responses III. MICROSOFT’S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET A. Market Share B. The Applications Barrier to Entry 1. Description of the Applications Barrier to Entry 2. Empirical Evidence of the Applications Barrier to Entry 3. Open-Source Applications Development 4. Cloning the 32-Bit Windows APIs C. Viable Alternatives to Windows D. Price Restraint Posed by Microsoft’s Installed Base E. Price Restraint Posed by Piracy F. Price Restraint Posed by Long-Term Threats G. Significance of Microsoft’s Innovation H. Microsoft’s Pricing Behavior I. Microsoft’s Actions Toward Other Firms IV. THE MIDDLEWARE THREATS A. The Netscape Web browser B. Sun’s Implementation of the Java Technologies C. Other Middleware Threats V. MICROSOFT’S RESPONSE TO THE BROWSER THREAT A. Microsoft’s Attempt to Dissuade Netscape from Developing Navigator as a Platform B. Withholding Crucial Technical Information C. The Similar Experiences of Other Firms in Dealing with Microsoft 1. Intel 2. Apple 3. RealNetworks 4. IBM D. Developing Competitive Web Browsing Software E. Giving Internet Explorer Away and Rewarding Firms that Helped Build Its Usage Share F. Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels 1. The Importance of the OEM and IAP Channels 2. Excluding Navigator from the OEM Channel a. Binding Internet Explorer to Windows i. The Status of Web Browsers as Separate Products ii. Microsoft’s Actions iii. Lack of Justification iv. The Market for Web Browsing Functionality b. Preventing OEMs from Removing the Ready Means of Accessing Internet Explorer and from Promoting Navigator in the Boot Sequence c. Pressuring OEMs to Promote Internet Explorer and to not Pre-Install or Promote Navigator d. Effect of Microsoft’s Actions in the OEM Channel 3. Excluding Navigator from the IAP Channel a. The Internet Explorer Access Kit Agreements b. The Referral Server Agreements c. The Online Services Folder Agreements i. AOL ii. Other Online Services d. Effect of Microsoft’s Actions in the IAP Channel 4. Inducing ICPs to Enhance Internet Explorer’s Usage Share at Navigator’s Expense 5. Directly Inducing ISVs to Rely on Microsoft’s Browsing Technologies Rather than APIs Exposed by Navigator 6. Foreclosing Apple as a Distribution Channel for Navigator G. Microsoft’s Success in Excluding Navigator from the Channels that Lead Most Efficiently to Browser Usage H. The Success of Microsoft’s Effort to Maximize Internet Explorer’s Usage Share at Navigator’s Expense 1. The Change in the Usage Shares of Internet Explorer and Navigator 2. The Cause of the Change in Usage Shares I. The Success of Microsoft’s Effort to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry from the Threat Posed by Navigator VI. MICROSOFT’S RESPONSE TO THE THREAT POSED BY SUN’S IMPLEMENTATION OF JAVA A. Creating a Java Implementation for Windows that Undermined Portability and Was Incompatible with Other Implementations B. Inducing Developers to Use the Microsoft Implementation of Java Rather than Sun-Compliant Implementations C. Thwarting the Expansion of the Java Class Libraries D. The Effect of Microsoft’s Efforts to Prevent Java from Diminishing the Applications Barrier to Entry VII. THE EFFECT ON CONSUMERS OF MICROSOFT’S EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE APPLICATIONS BARRIER TO ENTRY Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) and Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) retrieved on [1-13-2023], from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Did Microsoft Violate the Sherman Act? Findings of Fact

P. Agrawal, V. Gadde & N. Segal v. Twitter, Inc. Court Filing by Friedlander & gorris, April 10 2023

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

United States Of America v. Microsoft Corporation: The Time Uncle Sam Took Bill Gates to Court

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

10 Soul-Crushing Reasons to Abandon the Catastrophic Mess That Is Swift

10 Best Free Vector Icon Resources for App Design & Web Design in 2018

The Noonification: Innovation Is Slowing Down (10/19/2022)

The Noonification: 2024 Just Might Be The Year Crypto Enthusiasts Are Looking For (1/8/2024)

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

10 Soul-Crushing Reasons to Abandon the Catastrophic Mess That Is Swift

10 Best Free Vector Icon Resources for App Design & Web Design in 2018

The Noonification: Innovation Is Slowing Down (10/19/2022)

The Noonification: 2024 Just Might Be The Year Crypto Enthusiasts Are Looking For (1/8/2024)

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps