Have the activities of Microsoft hurt the customer? The case initially. By: Min Lin Nicole Ritter Gerald Des.


99 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Funny / Jokes
Description
Have the activities of Microsoft hurt the customer? The case initially. By: Min Lin Nicole Ritter Gerald DesRoches Terry Schmidt Government Exchange Commission Examination June 1990
Transcripts
Slide 1

Have the activities of Microsoft hurt the purchaser? The case initially. By: Min Lin Nicole Ritter Gerald DesRoches Terry Schmidt

Slide 2

Federal Trade Commission Investigation June 1990 Federal Trade Commission covertly examines conceivable arrangement in the middle of Microsoft and IBM. February 5, 1993 FTC makes no move against Microsoft after 2-2 vote of its chiefs.

Slide 3

U.S. Branch of Justice Investigation August 21, 1993 U.S. Equity Department assumes control Microsoft examination. July 15, 1994 Microsoft and U.S. DOJ sign assent order.

Slide 4

Netscape Communications Corp. December 1994 Netscape Communications Corp. presents Navigator Internet Browser not long after presentation have 80% of Internet program market; Microsoft under 5% three years after the fact, Netscape slips to half and Microsoft up to 40%

Slide 5

Consent Decree 1995 February 14 - U.S. Locale Judge Stanley Sporkin tosses out assent order June 16 - Appellate court upsets administering

Slide 6

Infamous Meeting June 1995 notorious meeting in the middle of Microsoft and Netscape

Slide 7

Windows 95 and Internet Explorer July 1995 Microsoft discharges Windows 95 and “integrated” Internet Explorer

Slide 8

Consent Decree 1995 August 21 - U.S. Locale Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson favors assent order

Slide 9

Department of Justice Investigation September 1996 DOJ researches conceivable infringement of assent declaration by Microsoft

Slide 10

Violation of Consent Decree October 20, 1997 DOJ requests that Judge Jackson fine Microsoft $1 million/day for damaging assent pronouncement and packaging Windows 95 and Internet Explorer Microsoft claims the program is an incorporated piece of the working framework

Slide 11

Microsoft Guilty December 11, 1997 Judge Jackson issues preparatory directive against Microsoft obliges unbundling of Web program from Windows 95 working framework selects “special master” to exhort him

Slide 12

Microsoft Appeals and Appeals and Appeals and . . . December 1997 to May 1998 Microsoft offers choice offers PC producers a form of Windows 95 that does not work DOJ requests that Microsoft be held in scorn for not going along to arrange Microsoft claims arrangement of extraordinary expert Microsoft permits PC creators to introduce Windows 95 without Internet Explorer symbol Court of Appeals stops uncommon expert examination Court of Appeals decides that directive against Microsoft does not have any significant bearing to Windows 98

Slide 13

Anti-trust Violation May 18, 1998 DOJ and 20 states document real hostile to trust cases affirming Microsoft mishandled its imposing business model energy to smother rivalry June 1998 Windows 98

Slide 14

October 19, 1998 trial starts in Washington D.C. Judge Jackson directing

Slide 15

Sherman Act Came into power in 1890 prevent corporate titans from shaping “trusts” to purchase contenders, power others bankrupt and raise costs. IBM - 1969 to 1982 AT&T - 1974 to 1982 Standard Oil - 1911 Aluminum Co. of America - 1945 American Tobacco - 1946

Slide 16

Sherman Act Section 1 disallows “tying” courses of action or “exclusionary” contracts Section 2 denies a firm from keeping up imposing business model through against aggressive acts

Slide 17

Courtroom Showdown What must government demonstrate? confirmation of syndication 80% of PCs overall utilization Microsoft working frameworks manhandling restraining infrastructure power savage evaluating exclusionary contracts market division harming shoppers

Slide 18

Courtroom Showdown trial starts October 19, 1998 government’s key witnesses incorporate affidavit tape of Bill Gates, senior officials from IBM, Apple, Sun, Intel, AOL, Intuit, Netscape, business analyst from MIT, programming specialists and permission of a huge number of email “snippets” Microsoft’s key witnesses are senior Microsoft administrators, financial expert from MIT

Slide 19

AOL and Netscape Merger November 24, 1998 AOL and Netscape complete $4 billion merger collusion with Sun Microsystem Microsoft cases prove that opposition is fit as a fiddle and their predominant business sector position could be toppled quickly South Carolina drops out of claim

Slide 20

The Verdict June 24, 1999 trial affirmation closes September 21, 1999 shutting contentions November 5, 1999 Jackson in preparatory discoveries, proclaims Microsoft an imposing business model November 9, 1999 to April 1, 2000 Microsoft and government in intercession talks - come up short

Slide 21

The Verdict April 3, 2000 Judge Jackson rules Microsoft blameworthy of disregarding Section 1 and 2 of Sherman Act welcomes coalition of states and DOJ to propose cures June 9, 2000 Judge Jackson records definite conclusion activities hurt customers requests organization split in two

Slide 22

Aftermath June 10, 2000 to exhibit Microsoft engages Court of Appeals government needs bid facilitated to Supreme Court Supreme Court doles out speak to Court of Appeals choice expected by spring of 2001 anticipated that would be spoke to Supreme Court - could take

Recommended
View more...