Judge Jackson argued that the Microsoft Windows operating system owes its market success to the fact that so many applications are written for it. Jackson contends that Microsoft sought to protect an effective monopoly in desktop operating systems by reducing Netscape's considerable market share. Jackson assumed that Java applications might someday operate off of Netscape, thereby making the underlying operating system irrelevant.
History suggests otherwise.
To date, no major desktop applications have been profitably ported to Linux. And never has a dominant application in an important market prompted a movement toward an OS function for that application. Thus, there is no evidence to support Judge Jackson's claim that a separate Microsoft Applications would undermine the market share of Windows. The Justice Department's expert acknowledged that breaking up Microsoft would likely result in higher prices because there would exist two profit-maximizing companies making complementary products instead of one. Computer makers would not be required to disclose to consumers when they are selling threadbare versions of Windows.