Government Side of the Microsoft Argument

In investigating the argument between the government and Microsoft, the government pursued three of four theories that they believed Microsoft violated. The first theory was after establishing good creditability; they used the market to and unethical tactics to control the market. The courts ruled that the law was violated on this count. The second theory was that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the market for internet browsers and the courts also ruled that this was a violation. The third theory was that Microsoft intentionally and incorrectly set up a system that denied consumers of choices, this also constituted as a violation. On the fourth argument did not hold up.

The argument the way it seems to be going is that Microsoft has grown to become a monopoly, but it does not give them the right to monopolize the consumers that has helped this company grow to success. A company of this magnitude should not abandon the social and ethical morals of the public. This case has grown to become so complex, that as an average individual, you are not really aware that your rights are being violated.

The government has stepped in to protect the consumer’s right and break down the system to receive justice. As United States citizens, we have the right to buy and sell and also make choices, whether it is in our best interest or not, that is our constitutional right. On the premise that a manufacturer of a market that dominates a product, this should be able to set defaults to privacy invasive levels, and then burden public interest groups with the task of "educating" consumers on how to protect their privacy.

Reference

Online NewsHour: Microsoft Ruling. (2000). Microsoft Ruling. Retrieved June 19, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june00/microsoft_law_4-3.html