If Microsoft ordered computer manufacturers to include its own browser in the pre-installed system, that could be considered unfair competition.
But to go a step further and demand these manufacturers to prohibit services for Netscape's Navigator browser crosses a line into blatant monopolistic behavior.
There is a fundamental difference between the two: the former is about coercive promotion, while the latter involves creating barriers to competitors.
In America, if a juggernaut is accused of monopolistic practices, it is indeed a very serious charge.
The cases of Standard Oil and AT&T prove this point, and since then, no company has dared to take such accusations lightly.
So the question arises, why did Microsoft dare to take this step and try by all means to block the spread of the Netscape browser?
Firstly, after Compaq's compromise, Microsoft's browser market share showed significant growth.
