Is Microsoft guilty of illegal tying?

A crucial question to be decided in the DOJ case against Microsoft is this: Did the company leverage its dominant position in operating systems (OS) to eliminate rivals from the market for internet browser software.

Justice O’Connor’s 3-part test for illegal tying (as outlined in the Jefferson Parrish Case) is almost certain to come into play here.

The issues

Lead Justice Department Attorney David Bois claims that OS licensing agreements with Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and other PC makers stipulated that the Internet Explorer icon appear on the desktop after the initial boot up sequence. These licensing agreements created a barrier to entry into the browser segment.

Are Windows and Internet Explorer “functionally integrated” components?

The functionally integrated issue: Can Windows and Explorer live without each other?

•Windows and Explorer share certain files—so that if you delete Explorer, Windows does not function properly.

•Windows 98 uses to the browser to view files in “my computer” and other files formatted in html.

•Microsoft agreed to sell Windows without Explorer—which seemed to be an admission that Windows could live without Explorer—alas, PC makers did not want to ship dysfunctional operating systems.