Excerpts from Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings

"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market . . . In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

"Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximising price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on customers and in inducing them to behave in ways that augment and prolong that monopoly power.

"Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power . . .

"Microsoft's actions have inflicted collateral harm on consumers who have no interest in using a Web browser at all. Microsoft has forced Windows 98 users uninterested in browsing to carry software, which . . . brings all the costs associated with carrying additional software. Corporate consumers . . . are further burdened in they are denied a simple and effective means of preventing employees from attempting to browse the Web.

"Most harmful of all is the message Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated it will use its prodigious market power and core products.

"Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."

Full findings: http://usvms.Gpo.Gov