United States v. Microsoft Corporation
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A firm with monopoly power in a relevant market violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in anticompetitive conduct that harms the competitive process, even if that conduct is aimed at nascent threats that are not yet direct competitors. To be deemed anticompetitive, the conduct's harm to competition must outweigh any procompetitive justifications.
Facts:
- Microsoft Corporation possessed a dominant and persistent market share of over 95% in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems with its Windows product.
- Middleware products, specifically Netscape's Navigator web browser and Sun Microsystems' Java technologies, emerged as potential threats to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
- These middleware products exposed their own Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), which, if widely adopted by developers, could have turned them into platforms for software that would run on any operating system, thereby eroding the 'applications barrier to entry' that protected Windows.
- In response to this threat, Microsoft engaged in a series of restrictive practices, including contractually prohibiting Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) from removing its Internet Explorer (IE) browser or altering the Windows desktop and boot sequence.
- Microsoft technologically integrated IE into Windows by commingling browser and operating system code, making it difficult for consumers or OEMs to remove IE without crippling the operating system.
- Microsoft entered into exclusive dealing arrangements with Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and Apple Computer, which required them to promote IE and suppress distribution of Netscape Navigator.
- Microsoft developed a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) incompatible with Sun's standard and used deceptive practices and threats against Intel to undermine Java's cross-platform capabilities.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States and a group of individual states filed separate antitrust complaints against Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which were then consolidated.
- The complaints alleged violations of Sherman Act §1 (unlawful tying and exclusive dealing) and §2 (monopoly maintenance and attempted monopolization), as well as related state laws.
- Following a 76-day bench trial, the District Court issued Findings of Fact and, subsequently, Conclusions of Law, finding Microsoft liable on the monopoly maintenance, attempted monopolization, and tying claims.
- The District Court rejected Microsoft's request for an evidentiary hearing on remedies and entered a Final Judgment that ordered the company to be split into an operating systems business and an applications business, and also imposed various conduct restrictions.
- Microsoft filed a notice of appeal from the Final Judgment directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals ordered the appeal to be heard by the court sitting en banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company holding monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act by using exclusionary and anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly against potential threats from middleware products like web browsers and Java?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, Microsoft violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by using its monopoly power to maintain its operating system monopoly. A firm violates § 2 if it possesses monopoly power and maintains that power through anticompetitive conduct, rather than through superior products or business acumen. The court affirmed the District Court's finding that Microsoft possessed monopoly power in the Intel-compatible PC operating system market, protected by a significant 'applications barrier to entry.' The court then established a four-part, burden-shifting framework to analyze anticompetitive conduct: 1) the plaintiff must show the conduct has an 'anticompetitive effect' that harms the competitive process; 2) the defendant may offer a 'procompetitive justification'; 3) if so, the plaintiff must rebut that justification; and 4) if the justification stands, the plaintiff must show the anticompetitive harm outweighs the procompetitive benefit. Applying this test, the court found that Microsoft's licensing restrictions on OEMs, its integration of IE into Windows (specifically excluding it from the Add/Remove utility and commingling code), its exclusive dealing contracts with IAPs and ISVs, its deal with Apple, and its efforts to sabotage Java were all anticompetitive acts that maintained the Windows monopoly. The court reversed the finding of liability for attempted monopolization of the browser market, finding plaintiffs failed to define a relevant market and show significant barriers to entry. The court also vacated the per se tying violation, holding that for platform software, tying claims should be analyzed under the more flexible rule of reason, and remanded this claim.
Analysis:
This landmark decision clarified the application of traditional antitrust law to the modern high-technology sector, particularly software markets characterized by network effects and rapid innovation. The court's adoption of a rule of reason-style balancing test for § 2 monopolization claims provides a durable framework for analyzing single-firm conduct, focusing on the net effect on competition rather than on intent. By rejecting a per se rule for tying arrangements involving platform software, the court acknowledged the potential for procompetitive benefits from integration and signaled that courts should be cautious before condemning product design in innovative industries. This case set a significant precedent for how dominant technology firms must compete, influencing business practices and future antitrust enforcement actions in the digital economy.
