What were the charges, findings, and proposed district court remedy in the Microsoft antitrust case?

What will be an ideal response?

In 1998, Microsoft was charged with violating section 2 of the Sherman Act by using business practices that maintained its Windows software monopoly. Microsoft denied the charges and argued that technological advances made any monopoly highly transitory. The findings from the Federal district court ruling in 2000 showed that Microsoft had a 95% market share of operating systems for PCs. They also showed that Microsoft used anti competitive practices to maintain and enhance its monopoly. These practices included combining its Windows software with the Internet Explorer to counter a threat from the Netscape Navigator browser, giving preferential treatment to software developers who created products featuring Internet Explorer instead of Netscape, and developing Java software for Windows to undercut Java software from Sun Micro systems. A Federal district court concluded that the remedy for these anti competitive practices was to divide the company into two firms, one responsible for Microsoft software applications and the other responsible for selling the Windows operating system.