After much research concerning the case of Microsoft v. the government we as a group have decided that our presidential candidate should support governmental intervention concerning Microsoft’s monopolizing business practices. The overwhelming amount of evidence against the unlawful tactics that Microsoft uses to gain complete control of the computer market proves that something must be done to allow more competition in the industry. Such an intervention could possibly stimulate more employment, greater opportunity for radical innovation, and increased probability for lower prices. We will argue this claim with evidence acquired via the Internet and various periodicals. Though there may be substantial amount information that may defend Microsoft’s legitimacy, the claims against Microsoft and those who are being negatively affected stand to outweigh the positive attributes considerably.

The key issue is what should the government do about the monopolizing strategies of Microsoft. The entities that have a stake in the outcomes are Microsoft’s competition like Sun Micro Systems, Real Networks, Netscape and the general public as well as the government. The companies that are competing are affected because they want to get their specific products circulating in the market but are unable to do so because of the monopoly created by Microsoft. With more business competition the general public will benefit because of the increased probability of price wars and more opportunity for critical innovation in the industry. Also, the eventual decision made by the government concerning the future of Microsoft will play a key role in future public approval ratings.

Empirically speaking, the companies, and those raising claim against Microsoft have brought much to the table. A November of ’97 statement issued by Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, and James Love an economist at the Center for Study of Responsive Law’s Consumer Project on Technology informed the nation of the actuality of Microsoft’s monopoly. They clued in the nation of Microsoft’s 90% control over the market for the operating system, and nearly the same 90% control over the market share for popular applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, presentation graphic programs, and relational databases – the components of the office applications that it bundles.

This bundling that Microsoft uses Nader, and Love claim is the site of Microsoft’s piracy. While including the programs in demand of Microsoft the company has been including weaker, and often malfunctioning programs in the initial package they offer to the public. Still, manufacturers have been choosing to produce Microsoft systems due to the much more efficient task of creating one package of programs that is cryptographically designed to work together as opposed to including other companies’ more well-designed programs into the mix. Directly, doing such a thing would be less cost-efficient. Microsoft, and it’s executives’ bundling technique finally landed itself in a bit of trouble when it so coyly attempted to choke off it’s only true competitor in the internet browser industry, Netscape, by including it’s own internet browser in the initial package of OS software. Action was taken as a result of this, and thus began the 7-year judiciary process that brings us to present. (Cyrus Afzail, www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/333321) There is little to no empirical evidence supplied in the statement made by the Ayn Rand Institute in defense of Microsoft.

We recommend that our political candidate support the movement to divest Microsoft, and that a Court-appointed monitor be positioned to oversee the OS manufacturing subsidiary so as to prevent any un-lawful bundling. We also recommend for our candidate to press a revision of the anti-trust act, one that would include new laws regulating bundling. This way Microsoft would be forced to compete on a much more level playing field where truly the quality