# The US Department of Justice sues Microsoft for monopolisation

Date: 1998

## The fact

On 18 May 1998 the [US Department of Justice](/organizations/us-department-of-justice), joined by states, filed US v. Microsoft, alleging monopolisation and tying of Internet Explorer to Windows. Gates was CEO.

## Context

Neighbouring Windows 95 is the product. Neighbouring 2000 findings are later. He did not write the Sherman Act.

Windows 95 is neighbouring product. 2000 findings and 2001 settlement are later docket events.

[Bill Gates](/people/bill-gates) was Microsoft CEO until January 2000, chairman until February 2014, then a technical adviser until 2020, and a Gates Foundation co-chair. That is not authorship of every Windows copy, every GAVI dose, or every IRS schedule. Melinda French Gates is a different person. Bill Clinton is PER-000772, a different person. A pledge is not a coverage rate. A docket is not a personality.

## Evidence and sources

United States Department of Justice carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently.

## Significance

The path is [antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets](/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets): a completed DOJ complaint is an accountability instrument against OS-browser tying.

## What is established and what is not

Established: 18 May 1998 DOJ complaint in US v. Microsoft, independently reported.

Not established: that a breakup occurred that week, or a unique later consumer-price coefficient from the filing.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

DOJ sued. States joined. Courts later sat. He did not sit as the judge.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies The US Department of Justice sues Microsoft for monopolisation, not a later speech about The US Department of Justice sues Microsoft for monopolisation.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. The US Department of Justice sues Microsoft for monopolisation on 1998-05-18 is not a licence to treat every later United States Department of Justice communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average The US Department of Justice sues Microsoft for monopolisation into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He was CEO of the defendant. DOJ sued. States joined. Courts later sat. He did not sit as the judge. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

## People

- Bill Gates: https://factrail.ai/people/bill-gates

## Drivers

- Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets: https://factrail.ai/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets
- Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration

## Sources

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-antitrust-idUSKCN0Q70K4
- https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-microsoft-corp

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/us-v-microsoft-1998