The US Department of Justice has issued its Proposed Conclusions
of Law today:
“This Court’s detailed findings of fact, issued November 5,
1999, describe Microsoft’s monopoly power; Microsoft’s recognition
of the threat posed by Netscape Navigator, cross-platform Java, and
other middleware to the applications barrier to entry supporting
that power; Microsoft’s determined efforts to beat back that
threat, and thus keep the entry barrier high, not by simply
offering consumers improved or more easily available products, but
by a host of costly exclusionary actions that both directly and
indirectly limited consumer choices; and Microsoft’s substantial
success in limiting browser and other middleware competition and
thus in preserving the entry barrier that protects its monopoly
power. Those facts are not repeated in full here. Rather, in
proposing conclusions of law based on the November 5 findings, this
brief summarizes in each section of the legal analysis enough of
the pertinent findings to show that the particular element of the
legal violation has been established….”
“The findings of fact issued by the Court on November 5, 1999,
establish that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act in at least four
ways. First, and most comprehensively, Microsoft violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, through a host of actions
that illegally maintained the critical barrier to entry into, and
hence its monopoly in, the market for operating systems for
Intel-compatible personal computers. Second, Microsoft’s several
related means of illegally tying a web browser to its operating
system violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Third, Microsoft also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when it
entered into a variety of illegally exclusionary agreements with
personal computer manufacturers, with Internet access and on-line
service providers, and with Internet content providers. Finally,
Microsoft’s anticompetitive campaign to impair Navigator’s
competitive access to consumers constituted an unlawful attempt to
monopolize the browser market in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.”
“These claims, though legally distinct, are closely related. The
tying agreements and exclusionary agreements violate Section 1, but
they are also part of the pattern of acts that violate Section 2
and would, indeed, be illegal monopolizing acts under Section 2
even if not illegal restraints of trade under Section 1. This Court
should conclude that Microsoft’s actions violate both Section 2 and
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and proceed to consideration of
appropriate remedies.”
For those interested, a paragraph dealing with Linux may be
found in Section I.A.2.c in the third paragraph.