|
|
Microsoft has an extremely large market share in the personal operating system market. To some extent, Microsoft is a typical sample of monopoly. Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard, in their article “The Microsoft Monopoly: The facts, the law and the remedy” (2000), assert that Microsoft has a monopoly, has engaged in anticompetitive behaviors, has harmed consumers and violated the law. They analysis the factual evidence and conclude two remedies which would solve this problem and best serve consumers. The objective of this article is to inform the reader that how harmful Microsoft monopoly is, and how necessary to change this situation as soon as possible. Although Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard ‘s article is well organized, interesting and thought provoking, it seems that there is a bias against Microsoft, overuse other scholar’s opinions, some points of view lack evidences. This essay will present a summary of the article and discuss the positive and negative characteristics. To begin with, authors introduce a Microsoft antitrust case and a debate between Judge Jackson and Microsoft’s defenders. In the following, they respectively analyze “the facts”, “the law” and “the remedy” of this case. In the part of “the facts”, authors quote Judge Jackson’s “three facts” to help audiences understand how Microsoft monopolies the software market and why it has harmed consumers. Next, in the part of “the law”, they introduce Judge Jackson’s conclusion of the law and damn to Microsoft’s conduct.
|
