Microsoft

⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Learn more ▼

This Article Requires Additional Verification

---

This article has been flagged due to verification concerns. While the topic might have merit, the claims presented lack citations that live up to our standards, or rely on sources that are questionable or unverifiable by our standards. Articles must meet the Moderator Guidelines and Mission statement; factual accuracy and systemic relevance are required for inclusion here!

Why This Article Is In Question

---

Articles in this wiki are required to:

• Provide verifiable & credible evidence to substantiate claims.
• Avoid relying on anecdotal, unsourced, or suspicious citations that lack legitimacy.
• Make sure that all claims are backed by reliable documentation or reporting from reputable sources.

Examples of issues that trigger this notice:

• A topic that heavily relies on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources.
• Unsupported claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
• Citations to disreputable sources, like non-expert blogs or sites known for spreading misinformation.

How You Can Improve This Article

---

To address verification concerns:

• Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
• Make sure that claims are backed by reputable reporting or independent documentation.
• Provide additional evidence to demonstrate systemic relevance and factual accuracy. For example:
  • Avoid: Claims based entirely on personal anecdotes or hearsay without supporting documentation.
  • Include: Corporate policies, internal communications, receipts, repair logs, verifiable video evidence, or credible investigative reports.

If you believe this notice has been placed in error, or once the article has been updated to address these concerns, please visit the #appeals channel on our Discord server: Join here.

---

Microsoft said that windows 10 would be the last windows, but now they are forcing users into windows 11, which is widely regarded as a significantly inferior operating system. Windows 11 also requires a Microsoft account to install. Windows 11 also says that a piece of hardware called TPM is required to install the problem is that PCs made before a couple of years ago do not have this hardware. It is notable that this restriction can be bypassed.

New windows 11 builds are now shipping with the extremely unpopular feature called Copilot which is an AI feature which will record everything on the screen.

Court cases up to the early 2000s

In the major antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser Internet Explorer with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The following was said in the court case: "The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of Netscape's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."

The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that were considered problematic:

1. the prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries
2. the prohibition for modifying the initial boot sequence
3. the prohibition of otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop

The case was eventually settled, and did not result in a company breakup.

Section III.H of the Consent Decree required Microsoft to "allow end users and OEMs to enable or remove access to all middleware products­, including web browsers, e-mail clients, and media players ­through a readily accessible, centralized mechanism". End users and OEMs should be able "to specify a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default middleware product to be launched in place of the corresponding Microsoft middleware product".

In the case United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000), Microsoft's Conduct taken as a whole is described as "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers".