Netscape vs. Microsoft
1.The anticompetitive conducts incurred by Microsoft are the following according to Spanish Law:
1. Abuse of dominant position (Art. 2LDC/art. 82 TCE; now art. 102 TCE)
a. Imposition, directly or indirectly, of unfair trading conditions.
b. Limiting distribution and technical development to unjustified companies and consumers
c.Making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance of supplementary obligations which by their nature or according to commercial custom, not related to the subject of such contracts.
2. Distortionof competition by unfair acts:
a. Aggressive practices and behaviours (arts. 28-31 LDC)
b. Prevail on the market thanks to a significant competitive advantage gained through infringement of laws.According to American Law:
1. Microsoft violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
2. Acts of Illegal monopoly maintenance
3.Illegal tying of Internet Explorer and Windows
4. Illegalmonopolization of the market
5. Attempted monopolization of the market
6. Tortious interference
7. Violation of District of Columbia Code 28-4502 and 28-4503
2. Using Spanish regulation (Ley15/2007, de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia) the following conducts incurred by Microsoft are illegal:
Art 2.1 and art 2.2 LDC.
Also, according the case, Microsoft attempted to make an agreementwith Netscape in order to split the market between both companies. Even though the agreement was rejected by Netscape it could have constituted an infringement of Art. 1.1 LDC.
3. There was anegative impact on other competitors and on the browser market. The first were in a significant disadvantage, since Microsoft provided obstacles to entry the market by acting from a dominant position andincurring in anticompetitive behaviour. The latter were left without the possibility of making a fair judgement or decision on whether they would want to use Internet Explorer or another browser...