The district court branded Microsoft s conduct anticompetitive even though it recognized that Microsoft did not foreclose Netscape from the marketplace. The primary argument of the appeal is that the government s lawsuit and the district court s rulings reflect a clear misunderstanding of the antitrust laws. Even accepting the district court s findings of fact, Microsoft must win on liability because there is no exclusion of competing products from consumers. Here are the key sections of our appeal and highlights from each. The district court erroneously held that Microsoft s design of Windows to include Web browsing software constituted a tie in violation of Section 1.
Plaintiffs tying claim fails for two independently sufficient reasons.
The district court erroneously held that Microsoft maintained a PC operating system monopoly in violation of Section 2. First , Microsoft cannot control prices or exclude competition, and thus does not possess monopoly power in a properly defined market. Second , Microsoft did not engage in anticompetitive conduct because it did not foreclose Navigator or Java from any marketplace. By adhering rigidly to the structural approach and failing to take into account the dynamism of the software industry, the district court elevated form over substance, excluding from consideration competitive forces that actively constrain Microsoft s conduct. As a result, the district court s narrow market definition obscures, rather than illuminates, the underlying competitive reality of the software business.