Research any topic before you write.

Find related topics. | Discover entities. | See connections. | Build a topical map.

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), was a landmark American antitrust law case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions…

History, Companies & Measurement

Use the mouse wheel or two fingers (on touchscreens) to zoom in and out of the map.

Research this topic

Explore the main themes, entities and connections around United States v. Microsoft Corp.. Start with the topic map, then use the sections below for research and deeper semantic analysis.

Explore this topic

Start with a few of the strongest sections from the source topic. These are research directions, not a list of keywords you must use.

Key facts & relationships

High-confidence facts extracted from structured source data. Use them as anchors for further research.

Argued
February 26–27, 2001
Citation
253 F.3d 34
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
June 28, 2001
Full case name
United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation
Judges sitting
Harry T. Edwards, CJ; Stephen F. Williams, Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel, JJ.

Topics to explore

Browse the full topic structure. Each item opens a new analysis centered on that subject.

Overview

History

District Court trial

Appeals Court decision

Settlement

Impact and criticism

Advanced semantic analysis

Deeper signals for content research, entity SEO and topical coverage. The plain-language headings explain what each technical view is useful for.

Map overview Semantic statistics

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Nodes90
Edges89
Triples24
Avg. degree1.98
Density0.022222
Components1

How this topic connects Entity context

See the strongest relationship patterns around the current topic before diving into the raw triples.

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Top relations

see also · 10
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Antitrust, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Corp, MicrosoftBig TechBrowser, MicrosoftEnshittificationMicrosoft, NURV, Removal, United States, Winblows, Windows
Argued · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → February 26–27, 2001
Citation · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → 253 F.3d 34
Court · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → June 28, 2001
Full case name · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation
Judges sitting · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Harry T. Edwards, CJ; Stephen F. Williams, Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel, JJ.
Prior history · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000); 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000), direct appeal denied, pet. cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000).
Subsequent history · 1
United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 534 U.S. 952 (2001) (pet. cert. denied); 224 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002); 231 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002) (on remand), aff'd in part and rev…

Important terminology Word statistics

Use these terms to understand the vocabulary surrounding the topic, not as a checklist for keyword stuffing.

Important terminology

microsoft windows court antitrust settlement states microsoft's case district government circuit software operating united 2001 supp 2d system browser judge

Entity relationships Subject–Predicate–Object triples

SubjectPredicateObjectConfidenceSrc
United States v. Microsoft Corp.ArguedFebruary 26–27, 20011.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.Citation253 F.3d 341.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.DecidedJune 28, 20011.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.Full case nameUnited States of America v. Microsoft Corporation1.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.Judges sittingHarry T. Edwards, CJ; Stephen F. Williams, Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel, JJ.1.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.Prior historyUnited States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000); 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000), direct appeal denied, pet. cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000).1.00infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.Subsequent historyMicrosoft Corp. v. United States, 534 U.S. 952 (2001) (pet. cert. denied); 224 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002); 231 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002) (on remand), aff'd in part and rev…1.00infobox
Netscapeinstance ofand users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs0.80text
Java.At the initial trial which began in 1998instance ofand users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs0.80text
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890instance ofand users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs0.80text
but the U.Sinstance ofand users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs0.80text

Related concept clusters Concept neighborhoods

These clusters group vocabulary that occurs around closely connected concepts in the source material.

    Connections between topic areas Semantic bridges

    Bridges can reveal useful research angles that are easy to miss in a flat list of related terms.

    Min side: 3
    For writers, content strategists, SEOs, marketers and creators — from quick topic research to advanced semantic analysis.