| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MICROSOFT U S ANTI TRUST": |
|
|
Microsoft and U.S. Anti-Trust Policy, 2005.
A discussion of the Microsoft company and its monopolistic practices.
1,341 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly describes the U.S. government'd case against the Microsoft company for its monopolistic business practices, the outcome of the case, and reasons why Microsoft should be considered a monopoly. The paper also touches upon the implications of the legal ruling in the Microsoft case for consumers and other large corporations.
From the Paper
"The issue concerning the nature of Microsoft as a monopoly is a controversial one. Of course within the company, as well as among Microsoft shareholders, most assert that Microsoft?s business practices are hardly monopolistic, and that it is simply ?popular.? However, many outside of the sphere of personal interest in the company are convinced that the term ?monopoly? should have Microsoft in its dictionary definition. As Ralph Nader pointed out in a 1998 ComputerWorld interview, ?Microsoft's claim that it is defending its right to innovate is a cruel joke in an industry that sees its best innovators attacked by the company's anticompetitive actions.? Further, ?Microsoft's agenda isn't innovation, its imitation, as well as the imposition of suffocating control over user choices and an ever-widening monopoly.? "
| |
|
Microsoft Anti-Trust Lawsuit, 2005.
Explores the anti-trust claims brought against computer giant, Microsoft.
1,760 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The anti-trust lawsuit brought against Microsoft Corporation is based on a variety of Microsoft strategies that are claimed to affect the browser industry at large. This paper analyzes the claims brought against Microsoft, as stated in the anti-trust lawsuit and the defense of Microsoft's business practices, as conveyed by news reports and press releases from the offices of Microsoft executives. These points of view, taken together, are an attempt to determine whether or not Microsoft's business strategies in the browser market have been an illegal method of obtaining a true monopoly of the industry, one which genuinely prohibits alternative browser development by non-Microsoft sources.
From the Paper
"AOL executive John Rose explained to the court that Compaq, one of the industry's leading manufacturers of personal computers, pre-installs both Microsoft and Netscape browsing software on all of its machines. [22] Thus, consumers are free to change their browsers at will, as often as they like. This testimony is a level blow to the idea that consumers are forced to use one type of browser over another. Yet it does not address the fact that when Internet Explorer comes pre-installed on any other type of PC, the end-user will still have easier access to the Internet via IE, if only because it saves the consumer the hassle of having to manually install a separate browser."
| |
|
Microsoft's Anti-Trust Case, 2005.
This paper discusses Microsoft's company history and the history of Microsoft's anti-trust case.
1,975 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in 1993, the Justice Department (DOJ) began an investigation into the allegations that (1) Microsoft used predatory pricing tactics to destroy competitors and eliminate competition in the marketplace and (2) erected technical barriers within their operating systems to make it difficult or impossible for non-Microsoft software to run on Windows; on July 15, 1994, in a consent decree, Microsoft agreed that it would not tie other Microsoft products into its Windows operating system. The author points out that this dominance was due to Microsoft's (1) development of a common user interface, which allows users to use similar commands in each of the individual application products, (2) concept of backward compatibility so that the older versions of applications work with newer versions of the operating system and (3) integration of its individual applications allowed users to create and use data between applications such as a spreadsheet created in Excel could be imported into a PowerPoint presentation. The paper continues to describe several other anti-trust cases such as the 2004 agreement with the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and Novell.
From the Paper
"In order to understand the environment in which the Microsoft anti-trust actions occurred, it is necessary to examine the beginnings of Microsoft. After an early career as a hacker, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Traf-O-Data in Seattle, Washington, a company started to develop and market a machine to generate traffic flow statistics. This machine was not the success that Gates and Allen hoped for, however. It may have been the youthfulness of the owners (Gates was 16), or it may have been that the state of Washington began to offer the same services for free."
| |
|
Microsoft and Anti-Trust Issues., 2002.
How Microsoft has been plagued with anti-trust claims.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 6 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This five-page undergraduate paper answers the question about Microsoft and anti-trust issues. Microsoft was supposed to be broken up, and that is the position of the paper because monopoly is all about power.
| |
|
Microsoft and Anti-Trust Issues, 2002.
Examines the legalities of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case from a business law and business technology perspective.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 7 sources, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, the legal implications of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case are evaluated with regards to business law and new technologies. Several aspects of business technology standardization are considered and the role of consumer participation and corporate ethics are also discussed.
| |
|
Microsoft's Anti-trust Court Case, 2002.
An overview of the anti-trust accusations brought against Microsoft Company.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shall summarize the current anti-trust court case against Microsoft (U.S. v. Microsoft) from the 1990's to the present.
| |
|
The Anti-Trust Case Against Microsoft, 2001.
A look at the pros and cons of the anti-trust case brought against Microsoft Corporation.
2,395 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 10 sources, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at the anti-trust case against Microsoft, the charges against them, and the end result of the case. It then looks at the issues for and against Microsoft, with the author's personal view suggesting that Microsoft does more good than bad.
From the Paper
"Since 1990, a battle has raged in United States courts between the United States government and the Microsoft Corporation out of Redmond, Washington, headed by Bill Gates. What is at stake is money. The federal government maintains that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are harmful to United States citizens, creating higher prices and potentially downgrading software quality, and should therefore be stopped, while Microsoft and its supporters claim that they are not breaking any laws, and are just doing good business."
| |
|
Microsoft and Anti-Trust Issues, 2002.
This paper presents arguments in favor of applying more stringent anti-trust measures against the Microsoft company.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses how Microsoft should either be broken up or be forced to alter its business or its products more fundamentally in order to reduce barriers to competition. This is because Microsoft has used its market power to destroy competition.
| |
|
Microsoft and Anti-Trust in the US, 2002.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the recent anti-trust case against Microsoft. 6 pgs. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
| |
|
The Microsoft Decision: An Anti-trust Revival, 2002.
Discusses the American courts' decision that computer giant company, Microsoft, be split into two companies.
2,246 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Microsoft has left an indelible mark on the business community as an innovator of technology, as a fierce competitor and as a stock market juggernaut. In the wake of the June 7th ruling handed down by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (ordering that Microsoft be split into two companies) the paper argues that we may add to Microsoft?s resume monopolistic predator, propagator of unfair business tactics and unrepentant defier of the courts. The paper shows that Microsoft is poised to take its place in history among the litany of other companies similarly forced to split upon scrutiny by the American courts. It shows that the Microsoft decision marks the biggest antitrust ruling since the breakup of AT&T in 1983. The paper shows that the ruling is a bold stroke by the Federal government to combat market monopolization and restraint of trade in the new technological age.
From the Paper
"Obviously, the outcome of the Microsoft trial indicates a return to a more severe regulatory philosophy on the part of the Federal government. Carroll and Buchholtz remark that throughout the 80s, ?the federal government played less and less of a role, especially in terms of monitoring and regulating business?(2000, p. 208). The Microsoft decision marks a definitive reversal of this trend. The Internet has, since its inception, been largely unregulated by the Federal government. And as Microsoft has shown, the repercussions of exploiting the laissez-faire tech-world can be manifold."
| |
|
Monopolies and U.S. Anti-Trust Policy, 2006.
Discusses the U.S. government's response to Verizon Communications, Inc.'s and MCI Inc's intentions to merge into a single telecommunications provider.
1,387 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins with a discussion of the potential monopolistic practices that could arise from a merger between telecommunications providers Verizon Communications Inc and MCI Inc. The paper then examines the U.S. government response to such a merger and why the government is correctly concerned about preventing a monopoly in the telecommunications industry.
From the Paper
"When Verizon Communications, Inc. ("Verizon") and MCI, Inc. ("MCI") announced their intentions to merge into a single telecommunications provider, the Federal Communications Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice took immediate notice. The government's quick response to such potential threats to competitive markets is perhaps due in part to the history of the telecommunications industry and, in particular, the role of the government in allowing the monopoly to continue for so long. Beginning in 1907, AT&T operated as a legally sanctioned monopoly. AT&T's then-president Theodore Vail argued that due to AT&T's advanced technology, it would be the most efficient provider of telecommunications services and would thus emerge as a natural monopoly. The government was convinced by this argument until 1974, when the United States filed a suit that was settled eight years later and required AT&T to divest itself of the Bell operating companies that provided local phone service."
| |
|
Anti-trust Action and Microsoft, 1999.
Examines the government's against Microsoft. Overview of monopolies, legal history, rationale for government intervention and the computer industry.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 8 sources, £ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Introduction
Most Americans have only a rudimentary understanding of monopolies, but they associate monopolies with "bad" companies. While it is true that monopolies can exercise a considerable amount of market power, it is also true that there are few true monopolies in the American economy; the threat of additional competition makes it difficult to sustain a monopoly for a long period of time. In recent years, the computer industry has been the target of several anti-trust actions by the government. The first of these concerned a hardware manufacturer, IBM, in which the manufacturer eventually prevailed, but only after a costly legal battle which spanned decades. Currently, Microsoft, a leading manufacturer of operating systems and applications for the microcomputer, finds itself battling anti-trust actions and facing a long legal battle ..."
| |
|
Anti-trust Enforcement, 2006.
Examines whether anti-trust laws are a help or a hindrance to the economy.
2,830 words (approx. 11.3 pages), 14 sources, MLA, £ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Trusts are viewed as competition destroyers which attempt to control the market for a product. Anti-trust laws arose out of the abuse of such trusts and these laws persevere to this day. This paper questions whether the government's enforcement is executed when the economic climate is right or whether the enforcement is occurring at regular intervals. It also questions whether certain corporations, like Microsoft, are unwitting targets of the government. The overall question in this paper is whether the enforcement of anti-trust laws harms American competition. The response lies in the history of anti-trust laws, the enforcement of such laws and the meaning of competition within economic understanding.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
The History of Anti-trust Laws
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914)
The Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)
Robinson-Patman Act (1936), Celler-Kefauver Act (1950) and The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976
Competition
Enforcement
Has the Microsoft Anti-trust Case Helped or Hindered American Competition?
Has the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Helped or Hindered American Competition?
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In 1911, two decades after the Sherman Act was passed, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company exerted unlawful monopolistic authority. This was the first major court decision since the Act was passed. The two mentioned companies were forced to dissolve into smaller firms that would compete against each other. The courts have not been consistent when interpreting the meaning of monopoly power under the Sherman Act either."
| |
|
Anti-Trust Law, 2002.
An overview of anti-trust law and its application, with a case study of both AT&T and Microsoft.
3,837 words (approx. 15.3 pages), 16 sources, APA, £ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins by describing anti-trust law as any law restricting business practices considered unfair or monopolistic. It provides a history of the law in America's judicial system, covering the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. The paper then discusses two key historic anti-trust cases in which the companies have been charged with anti-trust violations, American Telephone and Telegraph (1982) and Microsoft Corporation (1994 and 1998).
From the Paper
"AT&T was a natural monopoly, which needed to be broken up in order to allow others into the market. It was the only service provider at the time and in order to help improve the economy, it was important that changes be made to the status quo. Microsoft on the other hand, may be the dominant player in the world of operating systems, but there are other providers out there. Systems such as Linux and Unix are available for consumers. They may not be as user friendly as the Windows operating system, but there is a choice for the consumer. The question that needs to be asked is this: how is the consumer treated as a result of services being bundled in one package? Is the average consumer getting his money?s worth? Are these services affordable? How efficient is this method of bundling? If the answers to all these questions benefit the customer, then Microsoft and any dominant player in a business, has done well."
|
|
|
