United States v. Microsoft Corporation
GPTKB entity
Statements (113)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:appeals_to |
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
Microsoft appealed the decision |
| gptkbp:area |
antitrust law
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
1:98 CV01232
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
settlement reached
shaped future antitrust enforcement split decision Split decision breakup proposal rejected Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices Microsoft remains intact Microsoft's business practices monitored. found Microsoft guilty of monopolistic behavior increased regulation of tech industry settlement included oversight provisions |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
landmark antitrust case
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
antitrust litigation
|
| gptkbp:ceo |
gptkb:Steven_Anthony_Ballmer
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Microsoft_Corporation
gptkb:United_States gptkb:District_of_Columbia |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
|
| gptkbp:duration |
3 years
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 28, 2001
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
|
| gptkbp:impact |
software industry
Regulation of technology companies |
| gptkbp:influenced |
tech regulation policies
|
| gptkbp:initiated_by |
gptkb:Police_Department
|
| gptkbp:involves |
gptkb:Microsoft_Corporation
gptkb:United_States |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Thomas_Penfield_Jackson
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Clayton_Act
gptkb:Sherman_Act |
| gptkbp:major_city |
Settlement reached in 2004
limited business practices Microsoft agreed to share APIs |
| gptkbp:microsoft's_defense |
claimed no monopoly
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_legal_strategy |
aggressive defense
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_legal_team |
led by John Warden
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_market_position |
strong but challenged
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_market_share |
dominant in PC operating systems
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_public_image |
damaged during litigation
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_response |
appealed the ruling
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_response_to_ruling |
promised to change practices
|
| gptkbp:microsoft's_strategy |
bundling software products
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Microsoft found to have violated antitrust laws
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
future antitrust cases
Influenced future antitrust cases |
| gptkbp:public_policy_impact |
increased scrutiny of tech companies
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
mixed opinions
|
| gptkbp:public_relations |
focused on compliance
|
| gptkbp:publication_year |
May 18, 1998
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Oracle_v._Google
gptkb:United_States_v._Apple_Inc. |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Judicial_review
gptkb:Federal_Trade_Commission gptkb:operating_system gptkb:Internet_Explorer Public policy Consumer protection Consumer rights Corporate governance Consumer choice Legal compliance Market competition Market regulation Legal reforms Antitrust litigation Corporate strategy Legal arguments Legal challenges Legal frameworks Regulatory bodies Antitrust laws Business ethics Legal precedent Market dynamics antitrust laws Economic impact Monopolistic practices Regulatory scrutiny Judicial decisions Legal implications Corporate practices Antitrust enforcement Judicial processes Market dominance Corporate accountability Corporate governance issues Corporate responsibility Business practices Litigation outcomes Technology regulation Judicial outcomes State attorneys general Legal strategy Software industry regulations Corporate litigation Competition in software market Corporate litigation strategies Legal compliance issues Legal precedents in technology Market competition issues Software bundling practices |
| gptkbp:settlement_year |
gptkb:2004
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Antitrust law enforcement
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2001
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Merrick_Brian_Garland
gptkb:the_U._S._Department_of_Justice gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|