The Microsoft case against the United States Government is one of the most famous antitrust cases in United States history. Microsoft Corporations was originally founded as a software programming company in 1975. As the company grew, they discovered unique value in the operating system they owned. This asset has contributed significantly to the company's success as it grows in the desktop PC industry. This success has led to thousands of workers within the company becoming millionaires. Before Microsoft entered the realm of success through innovative ideas and remarkable market foresight, it faced strong competitive forces such as IBM's OS/2 system. In 1994 the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Microsoft stating that Microsoft had an exclusive contract with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that is anticompetitive and allows Microsoft to maintain a monopoly on PC operating systems. A settlement was reached that prevented Microsoft from making integrated products and limited their licensing activities by not linking software products together. In 1997 the Justice Department went back to court, claiming that Microsoft had violated the consent decree because Microsoft, to keep up with new competition, had tied Internet Explorer to its operating system. This violates the decree. The Justice Department was successful in district court. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeal. The case included the Department of Justice, the attorneys general of 20 states and the District of Columbia, where they sued Microsoft for monopolizing the operating system market, having anticompetitive contracts with OEMs, attempting to monopolize the Internet browser market and for integrating their web browser with their operating system. Microsoft has been held responsible... middle of paper... for allowing OEMs to significantly modify Windows and allowing customers to choose a browser. The case helped competition as well as consumers. The Justice Department said ten years after the case that nearly all desktop middleware markets, from Web browsers to instant messaging to media player software, are more competitive today than when the final ruling was made. In conclusion, the government was as appropriate as it was actually strict in changing the way Microsoft conducted business with rivals. I commend the government for not attacking Microsoft's ingenious innovative techniques and its right to compete aggressively. In this case the government prevailed because it was able to adequately analyze every detail. Looking back on this case, Bill Gates has proven himself to be a shark in whatever market he is involved in and his criminal record is not one to mess with.