The U.S vs. Microsoft was a case in which Microsoft Corporation was accused of abusing monopoly on intel-based PC on the way it handled the operating system and web browser sales. The main issue in the case focused on the rights of Microsoft in selling internet explorer and web browser software with its Microsoft windows' operating systems. This act of bundling them together, gave them competition advantage as every window had an internet copy. Furthermore, it was levied this act unfairly restricted the market for the competing web browsers like opera that were much slower in downloading over modems or had to be bought at a store, (Hemphill, 2004).
According to my opinion, Microsoft Corp does not act aggressively as most of other capitalistic businesses does in order to dominate the market or excel in its marketing. There was no vivid case their. In real sense, claiming that internet explorer was due to innovative and competition. The two were not similar at all. Considering the two, one can easily notice that they are different but just joined together to ensure that they win the market. And this is what really happens in a capitalistic market, (Hemphill, 2004). They just brought the two together to ensure their customers enjoy the two in one program. Since the products were distinct and separate products, which can work separately, this is based on the fact internet explorer was available for Mac OS, hence needed not to be tied to operating system.
However, after seeing the cost benefits of combining the two, Microsoft Corporation decided to go for it. This is because, even though there is a slight increase in product price, the rise is not significant enough to out way the benefits of the product like speed and availability. Though Microsoft claims that explorer is free, in real sense it is not true, sine for any product, there are costs, which are attached to it, for instance, there were program research costs, development costs and even marketing cost, and then how can it then be offered freely. This factor out ways competitors like Opera whose products are slower in downloading and have to be bought in stores.
This is just the kind of unfair competition in a capitalistic market where everyone will do anything to rule the market. This can be depicted in the way Bill Gates base his argument on. In considering the words he used like completion, concern ask and we, it can be noticed that, he is tending towards market competition. This could be seen, wetness's claim that "rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations." (Reynolds, 2001)They do not have facts to defend themselves in the case, meaning that there was no case. They just ended up falsifying the evidence, especially videotapes that were submitted during the hearing. It could be noticed from the evidence produced by the government that, Microsoft had removed conveniently removed along and complex part of its own procedure, and as claimed that Netscape icon had been placed on the desktop requiring users to search for it, was not true, according to the videotapes produced by the government. Microsoft didn't want to produce real videotapes, to show that that followed an order that they knew it will not work, by not considering the consequences as such, ( Weil, & McMillan, 2003).
In their public arena defense, it clearly showed that it was just competitive advantages, this is because, they do claim that competitors are just trying to fight their innovation to win the market. Microsoft just wanted to monopolize the markets to ensure that all threats are crushed.
In conclusion, capitalist markets, the aim is making profit, these owning resources can use them as they wish as long as they don't violate minimal law requirements. The market is characterized by freedom of owing private resources as you wish, and this was what was happening to Microsoft. So it was just adapting to capitalistic markets.