| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Plaintiff, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) |
| ) | ||
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Defendant. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Plaintiffs | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Defendant | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) | Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) | |
| ) | ||
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Counterclaim-Plaintiff, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ELLIOT SPITZER, attorney | ) | |
| general of the State of | ) | |
| New York, in his official | ) | |
| capacity, et al., | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Counterclaim-Defendants. | ) | |
| ) | ||
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of §2. Finally, they contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, violated § 1 of the Act.
Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ("Findings"), filed herein on November 5, 1999, as amended on December 21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of § 2. Microsoft also violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. The facts found do not support the conclusion, however, that the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies constituted unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions under § 1.
The nineteen states and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiff states") seek to ground liability additionally under their respective antitrust laws. The Court is persuaded that the evidence in the record proving violations of the Sherman Act also satisfies the elements of analogous causes of action arising under the laws of each plaintiff state. For this reason, and for others stated below, the Court holds Microsoft liable under those particular state laws as well.