Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
1999 WL 1067490, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18393, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's allegations of anticompetitive conduct by a monopolist should be viewed as a whole, rather than being compartmentalized into separate claims. Individual acts that may not be illegal in isolation can collectively constitute a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act if they demonstrate a pattern of conduct aimed at unlawfully maintaining a monopoly.
Facts:
- Digital Research, Inc. (DRI) developed an operating system, DR DOS, that competed directly with Microsoft Corporation's MS-DOS.
- By 1988, Microsoft had obtained a monopoly in the personal computer operating systems market with MS-DOS.
- In 1990, DRI released DR DOS 5.0, which was critically acclaimed and viewed as technologically superior to MS-DOS, beginning to gain market share.
- In response to the competitive threat from DR DOS, Microsoft allegedly engaged in several anticompetitive actions, including pre-announcing a competing product (MS-DOS 5.0) with a knowingly false release date, a practice known as creating 'vaporware,' to deter customers from adopting DR DOS.
- Microsoft allegedly spread 'fear, uncertainty, and doubt' (FUD) about DR DOS's compatibility with its popular Windows graphical user interface and used restrictive 'per-processor' licensing agreements with computer manufacturers (OEMs) that financially penalized them for installing competing operating systems.
- Microsoft intentionally engineered technical incompatibilities into beta versions of Windows 3.1, including the 'AARD code,' which created a false error message when it detected a non-Microsoft operating system.
- Microsoft excluded DRI from its beta testing program for Windows 3.1 ('beta blacklisting'), preventing DRI from ensuring its product's compatibility before Windows' public release.
- In 1995, Microsoft launched Windows 95, which integrated its operating system (MS-DOS 7.0) and its graphical interface (Windows 4.0) into a single product, thereby preventing OEMs from purchasing the Windows interface separately to use with a competing operating system.
- Caldera, Inc. later acquired the rights to DR DOS from Novell (which had previously acquired DRI), including the right to pursue legal action against Microsoft for these past actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Caldera, Inc. filed a complaint against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
- The complaint alleged violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act.
- Microsoft filed nine separate motions for partial summary judgment, attempting to defeat different factual components of Caldera's case as if they were stand-alone legal claims.
- In response, Caldera filed a motion to strike seven of Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment as procedurally improper.
- The court previously denied three of Microsoft's motions and now considers the remaining four motions relevant to this opinion along with Caldera's motion to strike.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do multiple instances of a monopolist's alleged anticompetitive conduct, which may not independently violate antitrust laws, create a genuine issue of material fact for a claim of unlawful monopoly maintenance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when viewed in their totality?
Opinions:
Majority - Benson, District Judge.
Yes, multiple instances of a monopolist's conduct can create a genuine issue of material fact for unlawful monopoly maintenance when viewed in their totality. The court ruled that an antitrust plaintiff's evidence of anticompetitive conduct should be assessed as a whole rather than being artificially separated into discrete claims. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., the court held that a plaintiff must be given the 'full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components.' Microsoft’s attempt to break Caldera's overarching Section 2 claim into seven separate 'claims' and seek summary judgment on each was deemed improper. The court found that Caldera had presented sufficient evidence on each component of its claim—including intentional incompatibilities, pre-disclosure (beta blacklisting), perceived incompatibilities (FUD and the AARD code), and technological tying—that a reasonable jury could find that Microsoft's conduct, in the aggregate, constituted an illegal scheme to maintain its monopoly. Regarding the technological tying claim, the court rejected a lenient 'plausible benefit' test and held that a jury must decide whether the integration of DOS and Windows in Windows 95 represented a 'valid, not insignificant, technological improvement' or was merely a marketing tactic to foreclose competition.
Analysis:
This opinion strongly endorses the 'synergy' or 'aggregation' theory in antitrust law, establishing that a monopolist cannot defeat a Section 2 claim by disaggregating the plaintiff's evidence into components that might seem innocuous in isolation. It prevents defendants from using summary judgment to 'slice and dice' a plaintiff's case. Furthermore, the court sets a stringent standard for the 'technological tying' defense, requiring more than a 'plausible' claim of product improvement to justify integrating products. This decision creates a precedent that prioritizes a factual inquiry into the technological necessity and market demand for separate products, making it more difficult for dominant tech companies to bundle products in a way that stifles competition.
