The European Court of Justice ultimately ruled that Microsoft was in violation of EU anti-trust laws (like the US court previously did)? Is Microsoft a monopoly that has abused its dominant position to stifle competition and to gain unfairly from its monopoly status?
I believe Microsoft is not a monopoly but a “quasi-monopoly”. Microsoft has managed its innovative and useful ideas to transform the society. In the early 80’s, IBM dominated the computer world both for corporate and personal use. According to Gregory Bresiger, “One part of the regulatory argument is that almost all big corporations can exercise quasi-monopoly powers…This could happen whenever a company or an owner could give his product a unique advantage…” [Gregory Bresiger. Taken from http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610e.asp on January 24, 2008]
own products and feels that once Microsoft has succeeded with similar products then they can take a bite of the cake.
Microsoft’s competitors are not “angels in paradise” they are chasing an ultimate corporate benefit from all those law suites. They are just play the game and Microsoft will appealed to any superior instance they can –because they can afford it – in order to gain the time to market its products and make them profitable projects.
For me, Microsoft has not “abused its dominant position to stifle competition” nor “gain unfairly from its monopoly status”. Microsoft has excelled in the field of marketing as well as in the scientific arena.
Should it be a function of government to ensure a level-playing-field in certain markets? Why or why not?
I believe that governments are authorities with a mandate to assure countries’ well-being and enforce rules of conduct. Being monopoly a potential trade behavior with pernicious consequences to society, governments needs to participate in ensuring “level-playing-field in certain markets” but should give enough freedom to allow competitiveness and creativity.