Product Innovation or Intentional Stifling essays
Consumers in the marketplace do not have too many choices when it comes to choosing which operating system they should use on their computer.In an effort to protect the consumer, a federal court has ruled that Microsoft Corporation is operating as a monopoly, with no interest in the consumer.Microsoft makes huge profits in this market share it controls, making it nearly impossible for another company to compete.The overall ruling was based on Microsoft’s practices, resulting in harm to the company’s competitors and the end consumer.
Microsoft’s intentions to stifle any company, which attempts to enter the software market it currently dominates, were enough reasons for the ruling.Microsoft is enjoying a stable, large market share of the operating system market.Their market share is so dominant, that there is an entry barrier that is extremely high, eliminating any alternative to the Microsoft Windows operating system.Other companies wishing to enter this particular market have no opportunity to survive; due to all the advantages Microsoft has implemented to maintain its position.
The Microsoft Corporation received this ruling because its overall practices were felt to be monopolistic in nature for an acting business.The Justice Department voiced that Microsoft’s own interest did not coincide with the innovation required to help the consumer, as well as limiting other companies to be competitive.Antitrust violations have come from numerous sources attacking Microsoft in a legal system designed to break up monopolies, as has happened in the past to companies.
Microsoft feels it has helped the consumer in such a critical area of personal computing, while contending there is competitive pressure on a constant basis from numerous technological aspects.With this constant pressure, there is no peace in ruling a market share, which would be so if Microsoft indeed was acting as a monopoly over the market.Microsoft …