Even though Microsoft continues to proclaim its innocence, it was required by Jackson's rulings to submit possible remedies. Antitrust law depends on a long history of economic and legal theory that says when companies control very large segments of their markets, they often have the ability to exclude new rivals or, within certain limits, raise prices at will. That power comes from the huge cash flow and massive bargaining power monopolists have at their disposal. Since they have a great deal of money in the first place, they may be able to cut prices below cost to the point that others find it essentially impossible to compete. If money alone can't keep rivals out of the market, monopolists can threaten new competitors and potential business partners with retaliation if they challenge their established monopoly.
Federal law forbids both such types of behavior.
And that's why Microsoft is in such trouble. According to Judge Jackson, Microsoft damaged rival Web browser maker Netscape Corp. not just by giving away its own Internet Explorer browser, but by tying Explorer to the Windows operating system so that consumers had to accept it whether they wanted it or not. In addition, Jackson found the company richly rewarded Internet service providers, computer makers and software makers who bundled the competing Internet Explorer browser with their offerings and promised not to give Netscape anything more than a token presence. Other companies, Jackson found, stood to lose too. IBM, for instance, had to sell computers with Windows 3.1 for months after its rivals had started selling PCs with Windows 95.