Antitrust
...ze that they do not need to buy Windows. Some say that Microsoft began it's "illegal" agenda when it began requiring PC manufacturers to sign a license agreement that said that if they were going to have Windows preinstalled on their new systems, that the Windows Internet Explorer must also be installed. Although it is possible for consumers to install other browsers onto Windows and use them, critics say that Microsoft still has an unfair advantage. It also keeps other browser companies from being able to consult with computer manufacturers to put their browser on the PC from the beginning. Computer manufacturers did not hesitate to comply with Microsoft's new standard because they didn’t want to lose the ability to manufacture computers with Windows installed on them. It would be stupid for a company to refuse compliance of Microsoft's new standard. This is another complaint of critics. That manufacturers had no other choice but to do what Microsoft said, out of fear of their own company losing profits. Microsoft also "pulls the strings" it has with other ISP's and software companies. There is a lot of software that is not made by Microsoft that comes with the Windows package. Some of these include, AOL, Prodigy, AT&T, Quicken, and more. Microsoft gives these companies and their icons and programs are displayed on the Windows desktop. In return, these companies must give preferential treatment in promotion and the like to Microsoft. One example is AOL's new 4.0 browser is specially designed to work best with the Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 browser. Microsoft is not only working with ISP's, but also with companies that build and maintain web pages and servers. Microsoft also gives them preferential treatment through Windows and in return, they make their web pages to be compliant with the Microsoft browser. Most web pages even have a message that says, "Best viewed with Microsoft IE4.0". In this way, Microsoft can again hold its position in the browser market. When Netscape refused to bow before Microsoft, Microsoft decided to do everything in their power to limit the amount of resources that Netscape could access. Their methods were often compared to those of Andrew Carnegie's, of Carnegie Steel, in the early 1900's. When a competitor would come into town, he would lower his prices way below cost to drive the competitor out of business. He could afford to do this because he already had the established capital to sustain him. He would just dip into reserves of cash for the time being, and the lowering of prices would not put him out of business. This was deemed illegal and his practice is one of the main reasons that the Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted. According to the Act, no company can engage in monopolistic activities intentionally. If they lowered their prices temporarily to drive out competition, while depending on their cash reserves to hold them over, this would be illegal. But, if they do not lower the price of their products below cost, then their strategy is just a form of true competition. Microsoft appears to have followed the latter practice. Microsoft began ...