twelve years after the completion of Macro lawsuits of the United States and the European Union against Microsoft Allegations of potential monopoly, unfair practices against the company are still open. In November 2021, a total of 30 companies in the technology sector reopened the thunder box and filed a new lawsuit. Satya Nadella’s company possibly anti-competitive practices by integrating platforms such as team y onedriveWindows versions 10 and 11An act that, according to these companies, limits users’ ability to choose, in addition to creating barriers to competitors.
But the story goes back a long way when the Court of Justice of Columbia (United States) was about to lead the separation of the two of the company, directed at that time by Bill Gates. In the controversial sentence, Judge Jackson held that Microsoft’s dominance in the operating system market constituted a monopoly. and that the Company had taken action to eliminate the threats to the said monopoly, including threats from Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, etc. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.
On 7 June 2000, the court ordered the separation into two separate companies.One is responsible for producing the operating system and the other for developing other software components. However, in an unexpected turn of events, Colombia’s Court of Appeals overturns Judge Jackson’s conviction against Microsoft and accuses controversial magistrate of lack of professional ethics,
What’s Next History: The Justice Department announced on September 6, 2001 that it no longer needed to liquidate Microsoft, but rather, urged the company to advance its understanding with the plaintiffs so thatPC manufacturers may adopt non-Microsoft software.
On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions to enable a final settlement before the judge’s decision, so at the end of June 2004.Court of Appeals unanimously approved settlement with Department of Justice Much less harsh than originally proposed, overcoming the objections of several states that argued against the decision.