There were a couple of instances where Microsoft was guilty of restraint of violations of the Sherman Act. Microsoft did, in fact, enter into exclusive agreements as outlined in Section I. Microsoft entered into an exclusive agreement with Intuit giving the Quicken Financial Planner software an icon on the Windows desktop in exchange for exclusive compatibility of Internet Explorer with the Quicken software. Also, in exclusionary deals with OEM computer manufacturers, Microsoft prohibited them from offering competing "middleware" applications. For example, OEM manufacturers could not pre-install Corel Office Suite since it directly competed with Microsoft Office.
These are facts, and they are indisputable. As part of the settlement of the case, Microsoft is prohibited from specifying or limiting the applications that OEM computer manufacturers can install. Microsoft must also make available portions of the Windows operating system code to third-party software developers, so they can ensure that their products are compatible with Windows. I think these are just remedies for the violations mentioned above.
With regard to the monopolization of the O/S market, I agree with Lawrence and Lori that Microsoft Windows became the market leader because of product superiority. There are other products out there they just don't compete with Windows for user-friendliness. If there are any "Live Free or Die" Linux fanatics in the class, I won't bother debating the technical aspects of Microsoft vs. Linux. The fact is, Linux is too complicated for the average home user, so it will never take over the world. As for Macintosh, they shot themselves in the 80s when they refused to license their hardware platform to allow third-party vendors to create "clone" hardware. Conversely, IBM licensed its ISA and EISA hardware standards, and the "PC clone" was born. Since then, the Intel-based PC platform has dominated in Market share, and Microsoft has dominated the PC O/S platform because of its user-friendliness.
