How has the lawsuit against microsoft impacted the popularity

It's been real. Stephany Nunneley 2 3 hours ago. Stephany Nunneley 3 6 hours ago. Lots coming Jan. Stephany Nunneley 1 7 hours ago. Monster Hunter Rise failed to save bug explained Failure to launch. In some ways, the Netscape lawsuit is trying to achieve what the government failed to do so at trial, such as proving Microsoft tried to extend its Windows monopoly to the browser market.

Boe, AOL's general counsel, said in a statement. Microsoft asserted that the lawsuit is more a competitive move by AOL Time Warner than a legitimate attempt to recover damages. Microsoft is investing to build new products, while AOL invests in lawyers and lobbyists to put roadblocks in Microsoft's way.

That settlement is undergoing review pursuant to the Tunney Act. In December, nine other states that didn't join the settlement filed a remedy proposal asking that, among other items, Microsoft be compelled to give away the Internet Explorer source code to restore competition in the browser market. Jury trial sought Netscape is asking for a jury trial and is seeking damages but did not specify an amount in the lawsuit, filed in U. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, the lawsuit does ask for triple damages based on the Clayton Act and the District of Columbia Code, as well as interest and attorneys fees.

Netscape also asked for an injunction against Microsoft's alleged antitrust violations, both current and future. The judge in the case ultimately would decide the nature of the injunctive relief, which Netscape suggested could be derived from a remedy proposal filed last year by nine states and the District of Columbia.

One option: forcing Microsoft to release a version of Windows without its own "middleware" products such as a Web browser, media player or instant messenger. There is really tremendous public interest in which way this thing comes out.

Rich Gray, a Silicon Valley lawyer closely watching the Microsoft antitrust trial, had a mixed response to the lawsuit. The government case accused Microsoft of making it difficult for consumers to install competing software on computers operated by Windows.

If Microsoft was found to have made it unreasonably difficult for consumers to uninstall Internet Explorer and use a competing browser, the company's practices would be deemed anti-competitive. The case meandered along with accusations of misleading statements and a variety of courtroom distractions.

A group of economists even published a full-page open letter to President Bill Clinton in major newspapers in support of Microsoft stating that antitrust laws hurt consumers as well as the success of domestic firms in global competition.

They urged authorities to drop protectionism fueled by antitrust laws. The trial didn't necessarily run very smoothly. In fact, the DOJ's case against Microsoft was plagued with problems.

First, there were questions about whether charges should have been brought against Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft claimed that its competitors were jealous of its success.

Meanwhile, those who supported Microsoft proposed that if the company was to be considered a monopoly, it was, at best, a noncoercive one. They argued that even with options like Unix, Linux, and Macintosh, consumers demonstrated a preference for the convenience of Microsoft's Windows product on their computers.

Windows may not have been the superior product, but it could run on a Toshiba laptop or on a number of clones. The ease of its installation and its other bundled software allowed it to become the norm. Despite the creative editing of video, facts, and emails, Microsoft lost the case. The presiding judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, ruled that Microsoft violated parts of the Sherman Antitrust Act , which was established in to outlaw monopolies and cartels. He found that Microsoft's position in the marketplace constituted a monopoly that threatened not only the competition but also innovation in the industry.

Jackson also called for Microsoft to divide the company in half and create two separate entities that would be called baby bills. The operating system would make up one half of the company and the software arm would make up the other. Microsoft didn't take the ruling lightly and appealed the decision. The company took issue with the judge's position, citing bias in favor of the prosecution.

The appeals court overturned Jackson's decision against Microsoft. Instead of seeking to break up the company, the Department of Justice decided to settle with Microsoft. In its settlement, the DoJ abandoned the requirement to break up the company, In return, Microsoft agreed to share computing interfaces with other companies. The company saw its once invincible market share erode due to old-fashioned competition. But the lessons learned from the case continue to resound.

Many now wonder if bringing antitrust cases against non-coercive monopolies is merely a costly redundancy of work the free market can do at no charge. The Washington Post. Department of Justice. Independent Institute. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact.