Research any topic before you write.

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

United States v. Microsoft Corp.: History, Companies & Measurement

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…

Language: English [EN]

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

Map view:

Zoom: 100%

More settings

Connection length 100% Label size 100% Node size 100% Line width 100% Label width 100%

Export map as:

United States v. Microsoft Corp. topic overview

The analysis highlights History, Companies and Measurement as prominent areas in the source structure around United States v. Microsoft Corp.. 1 topic appears in more than one source area, which can help identify connections that are less obvious in a linear reading.

Related topics: 82
Source areas: 6
Connected nodes: 89
Extracted relationships: 24
Concept neighborhoods: 29
Bridge connections: 89

What this topic covers Research coverage

Source areas are shown by the number of related topics found in each part of the analysis. Use smaller areas too: they can reveal specialized angles and content gaps.

District Court trial · 29 topics

History · 20 topics

Overview · 15 topics

Impact and criticism · 8 topics

Appeals Court decision · 7 topics

Settlement · 4 topics

Smaller areas are not necessarily less important. They contain fewer connections in this analysis and can be useful for finding specialized angles or coverage gaps.

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.

Suggested research paths

A focused starting point derived from the topic graph, ranked independently of the source article order.

Start with these areas

Connections across areas

Application programming interfacesHistory · Settlement

Explore all related topics Closing gaps

Browse the complete topic structure, not only the most central items. Less prominent entities and concepts can reveal missing angles, specialized context and useful research gaps. Each item opens a new analysis centered on that subject.

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.

How United States v. Microsoft Corp. connects Entity context

The extracted context around United States v. Microsoft Corp. shows recurring relationship patterns in the source. For example, United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Antitrust, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Corp, MicrosoftBig TechBrowser, MicrosoftEnshittificationMicrosoft, NURV, Removal, United States, Winblows, Windows Another extracted example is United States v. Microsoft Corp. → February 26–27, 2001. Use these groups to spot repeated connection types before inspecting the individual relationships.

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

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

United States v. Microsoft Corp. relationships Subject–Predicate–Object triples

TTTA extracted 24 structured relationships around United States v. Microsoft Corp.. Examples in this analysis include United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Argued → February 26–27, 2001 and United States v. Microsoft Corp. → Citation → 253 F.3d 34. The table shows each extracted connection, where it came from and its confidence.

Subject	Predicate	Object	Confidence	Src
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Argued	February 26–27, 2001	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Citation	253 F.3d 34	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Court	United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Decided	June 28, 2001	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Full case name	United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	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.	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Prior history	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).	1.00	infobox
United States v. Microsoft Corp.	Subsequent history	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…	1.00	infobox
Netscape	instance of	and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs	0.80	text
Java.At the initial trial which began in 1998	instance of	and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs	0.80	text
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 1890	instance of	and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs	0.80	text
but the U.S	instance of	and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs	0.80	text

Related concept clusters Concept neighborhoods

The concept neighborhoods around United States v. Microsoft Corp. bring nearby vocabulary together. In this analysis, examples include United, Columbia and District. Use the clusters to find adjacent concepts and terminology that may deserve separate research.

United States v. Microsoft Corp.
- United
- Columbia
- District
- Case
- Judgment
- Court
- Appeals
- Circuit
- Operating
- Justice
- Antitrust
- System
united states v. microsoft corp.
- United
- Columbia
- District
- Case
- Judgment
- Windows
- Software
- Court
- Appeals
- Circuit
- Operating
- Justice
antitrust law
- Act
- Sherman
- Browser
- United
- District
- Tying
- States
- Court
- Case
- Microsoft
- Circuit
- Appeals
united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
- United
- Columbia
- District
- Circuit
- Court
- States
- Case
- Judgment
- Judge
- Also
- Appeals
- Justice
microsoft
- Windows
- Software
- Operating
- System
- Would
- Settlement
- Company
- Web
- Internet
- Microsoft's
- Tying
- Act
web browser
- Web
- System
- Windows
- Operating
- Explorer
- Netscape
- Government
- Software
- Internet
- Ie
- Microsoft
- Tying
united states district court for the district of columbia
- United
- Columbia
- District
- Circuit
- States
- Case
- Judge
- Judgment
- Court
- Appeals
- Justice
- Settlement
sherman antitrust act of 1890
- Act
- Sherman
- Tying
- Antitrust
- Browser
- United
- District
- States
- Court
- Case
- Microsoft
- Circuit

Connections between topic areas Semantic bridges

For United States v. Microsoft Corp., one of the stronger structural bridges in this analysis connects United States v. Microsoft Corp. with District Court trial. Bridges highlight paths between different parts of the map and can reveal research angles that are easy to miss in a flat list.

Min side: 3

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — District Court trial · splits 60 ⟂ 30

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — History · splits 69 ⟂ 21

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — Overview · splits 74 ⟂ 16

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — Impact and criticism · splits 81 ⟂ 9

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — Appeals Court decision · splits 82 ⟂ 8

United States v. Microsoft Corp. — Settlement · splits 85 ⟂ 5

Map overview Semantic statistics

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Nodes90

Edges89

Triples24

Avg. degree1.98

Density0.022222

Components1

Source & methodology

TTTA analyzes the structure around United States v. Microsoft Corp. to surface related topics, entities, relationships, concept neighborhoods and bridge connections. Use the map to explore areas such as History, Companies & Measurement, including less central topics that may reveal useful research gaps. Automatically extracted connections are research leads rather than rewritten encyclopedia content.

Source: Wikipedia — United States v. Microsoft Corp. · EN edition · Analysis: TopicsToTalkAbout

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