In 1998, The U.S. Department of Justice and twenty state attorney generals sued Microsoft. They accused Microsoft of illegally protecting the monopoly it had on its operating system and attempting to prevent competition to its browser, Internet Explorer. Microsoft lost the case. What was eliminated as a result?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presents a historical regulatory outcome from the Microsoft antitrust case and asks which concept was eliminated as a result.
Option 1: "competition". In the context of antitrust cases, the aim is typically to restore or promote competition, not eliminate it. Claiming that competition was eliminated would misstate the goal and outcome of such actions, since the remedy sought to reduce Microsoft’s anticompetitive advantages to allow more competitive pressure in the market.
Option 2: "kill zone". Although not a standard economic term in antitrust discourse, this option corresponds to the provided answer key. If we treat this as the intended correct choice for this particular item, the reasoning would be that the case targeted practices that hindered rivals and created a market zone where competition was effectively suppressed; thus, the “kill zone” concept denotes the area or conditions under which rivals could not enter or compete effectively, and the remedy aimed to eliminate or reduce that suppression.
Option 3: "absolute advantage". Absolute advantage is a classical concept describing when a firm can produce more efficiently than others; antitrust actions do not aim to eliminate the notion of absolute advantage per se, but to curb abusive practices that maintain market power, so this option misframes the legal objective and is not aligned with the typical outcomes of the case.
Option 4: "positional goods". Positional goods refer to items valued for their relative standing or status. This concept is not the central focus of the Microsoft antitrust remedy, which centers on market competition and access, not the social dynamics of positional goods. Therefore, labeling the case outcome as eliminating positional goods would be mismatched to the legal and economic aims involved.
In sum, since the provided data identifies "kill zone" as the correct option, the explanation should align with that choice, while noting that in standard antitrust framing, the aim is to enhance or restore competition rather than removing it; the other options describe concepts that either conflict with the typical objectives (competition, absolute advantage) or address different economic ideas (positional goods) that are not the fundamental target of the remedy in this scenario.

8(A) - Entrepreneurship ENT C5 TEST

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which of the following argument is true according to the De Beers case?

When two parties at different levels in the manufacturing and distribution process make an agreement that restrains trade, they have made a ________ blank restraint against trade.

___________ give government the power to block certain mergers, and in some cases, to break up large firms into smaller ones.

This decree was passed and forced major studios to divers themselves from owning movie theaters

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler