The beginning of the endeavor from Microsoft vs. the European Union came from a complaint left by Sun Microsystems. The complaint was based on Microsoft not revealing information that should be made public in terms of the PC operating system and overall functioning. The system that was complained about was furthered with information that wasn’t provided to vendors about the Microsoft Windows Media Player Product. The investigation which followed stated that Microsoft denied revealing specific information about the products, which allowed them to dominate the market while other vendors remained at a disadvantage because of the information which was not disclosed. The belief was that Microsoft had become involved in becoming anti-competitive, specifically because of the lack of information available to the public about the media player and operating system of Windows. The problem which arose was based on vendors not being able to create products that would compliment and intertwine with Microsoft. This continued with the competitive advantage that allowed Microsoft to dominate the market and the different aspects of operating systems that were associated with this (EU, 2011).The behavior of Microsoft reached a verdict of being anti-competitive and didn’t comply with Article 24 (1) and (2) with not supplying vendors with information. This is noted to be anti-competitive because every vendor is required to supply specific information to the public. If the competition did have the information, then it would have remained a part of the competitive field and would have allowed other vendors to use the same information or create complementary software systems. However, without revealing the information, vendors don’t have the capacity of making systems that comply with the Microsoft Windows operating system. This leads to the inability of other vendors and suppliers to create open-source products or software systems that can be used on the operating system, which is currently dominating the world market with computers. The result is a monopoly that allows Microsoft to continue to leverage the main consumer demand for cheaper and efficient operating systems without having other software or vendors that can compete with the product or create alternative products. The decision is shown best with the Apple competition, which is unable to create the cheaper models and software systems but which doesn’t have the information from Microsoft to become competitive in the field.From the viewpoint of Microsoft, there is the viewpoint of having antitrust with the decision which occurred. If information is revealed about the products and services offered through the operating system, then a vendor can easily copy this and begin to sell the idea outside of the operating system. There may also be the ability to create open-source alternatives for individuals, which would lead to a loss in profit for Microsoft. The dynamics of operating systems and technology would lead Microsoft at a disadvantage because of the way in which individuals could work with the technology and operating systems that are offered by the corporation. The viewpoint of Microsoft was one which was reliant on not disclosing the information so they could keep their products safe and without complexities in others stealing or using the products and systems that Microsoft created (Groklaw, 2011).