Is the antitrust case breaking any new legal ground?
Shapiro: I would say that the Justice Department has very carefully crafted a case against Microsoft to avoid having to break new legal ground, and to give them the strongest position to limit Microsoft’s conduct without taking unnecessary risks. If you look at the conduct the Justice Department is complaining about, it falls in traditional categories of antitrust law that have been litigated for 50 to 100 years. We’re looking at exclusionary contracts used by a monopolist, tying and bundling. I suspect many people will take note of one of the remedies — the “must carry” provision, forcing Microsoft to carry Netscape. What they’re saying is that because Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive conduct, this “must-carry” is needed as a remedial measure to make up for the damage to competition already created by Microsoft. That’s an important legal distinction.If anti-competitive conduct is found, the court has much broader scope to force the company that’s engaged in monopolization to
