Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

over applications development and also threatening the continuedprimacy of its Windows operating system. Windows would becomemerely a part of the substratum that could be easily substituted ifapplications software could be written to the browser platform.Sun’s programming language, Java, also allowed applications tobe written in such a way that they could be ported from oneplatform to another. Both of those developments threatenedMicrosoft and made it more likely for a competitor such as theopen source operating system, Linux, to be more successful.One way Microsoft took on the challenge was to build up itsmarket share in the internet browser area through its product,Internet Explorer (IE). Its main rival in this area was theNetscape internet browser, which showed the potential to becomea dominant platform upon which to write applications software.Microsoft was also alleged to have tried to make it difficult forJava based programs to run on Windows without modification.247Judge Jackson found that Microsoft breached sections 1 and 2of the Sherman Act.248 They were found to have violated section1—unreasonable contracts in restraint of trade—by tying theirbrowser to the operating system and ensuring through agreementwith OEMs that the two were sold as a unit.249 Microsoft arguedthat Windows and IE were merely one product and there was nounlawful tying. The judge called this a form of technology tyingwhere software code tied the software products together.250 Heheld that there was a clear market for two separate products and,as such, this was a case of tying.251 As far as section 2 wasconcerned, Judge Jackson found that Microsoft’s actions towardsNetscape and Sun were predacious and in breach of the ShermanAct.252 As a remedy, the judge ordered that Microsoft Corporationbe broken up into an applications company and an operatingsystems company.253On appeal, the judge’s findings relating to tying and remedywere questioned.254 However, Judge Jackson’s findings regarding247. Id. at 43.248. Id. at 44-45.249. Id. at 47.250. See id. at 50-51.251. Id.252. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d at 44.253. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 64-65 (D.D.C. 2000).254. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).