Is Microsoft a monopoly or not?
In order to understand if Microsoft is a monopoly one must first know the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a firm that is the sole seller of a product that has little or no substitutes. This automatically should arouse many thoughts in the minds of “us” as consumers. For all these years have we been monopolized by a producer of a product just because there were limited sources in the same fields? Yes and no should be the floating answer. Microsoft for years has been the producer of almost every necessary component associated with our electrical devices. Microsoft is the developer of multiple operating systems or OS that first entered the market in 1981 but did not officially appear until 1984. In 1984, the Applesoft Basic for Apple Computers was introduced by Bill Gates. Due to the fact that the Apple system was first in this technologically advanced field it was set in the direction of being a monopoly. This is the evident sign that lack of other operating systems would set both Bill Gates and Microsoft in a monopolistic state. So if this monopolistic sign was so evident then why wasn’t it stopped by the government? This is a direct form of a government-created monopoly. Government-created monopolies exist because of patents and copyrights. The government has allowed Microsoft to exist because it was seen to be within the best interest of the public. The government does not actually predict whether a producer or firm will be a monopolist, it only allows a firm or producer to own the rights to the specific fields that they want to create. The communications field often has their own set of economical rules which is commonly set at the understanding that every must benefit from the product. Microsoft has often perfected this with their operating systems by staying consistently up to date with the consumer’s way of life. So what exactly allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly? Microsoft (Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Tim Patterson) would create and enforce universal data interaction standards for computer systems. The timing for this was perfect because businesses were in a technological era that the computer was in necessary and high demand. Microsoft became one of the largest monopolies because of their ability to be in almost every market that had use of a computer system. This was a great thing for Microsoft and for users but it was also a bad thing for users as well. Since the market was so unregulated it would allow Microsoft to not produce a quality product. This was allowed because of their monopoly. This monopoly would be out of the control of the government because breaking up the Microsoft Company into little companies would only cause damage to the consumer. In this I mean you the consumer would have to purchase multiple operating systems in order to maintain computer interacting standards. This would not be the best interest of either the government or the consumer. So unfortunately this monopoly would be allowed to carry on its position in the computer operating fields. Just think by chance that the government did break this monopolistic company up? This would allow so many small companies to produce the same product under the same outdated set of rules. So question, if the same set of bendable rules applied what would stop those small broken up companies from becoming a monopoly as well? Exactly nothing. So the government sees it better for consumers to have to deal with one monopoly compared to multiple. A company like Microsoft falls into a classification of a large monopoly. There are many smaller monopolies that go unnoticed. Some of these companies are Nike, Reebok, New Balance, etc. You may hear about some of these companies monopolistic traits, but choose not to pay much attention because they are not as large as a company as Microsoft. Let’s face it we tend to have a thought that they are just brands. Just a thought, when you...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document