info graphic i put together to help me understand some topics we were covering during my MBA

1. May 12, 2006 February 23, 2006 January 24, 2005
The U.S. Justice Dept said Several big MS rivals, MS decides not to appeal
March 1, 2007
it wants to extend until at including IBM and Sun, file the interim EU ruling
EU accused MS of setting December 23, 2005
least Nov. 2009 it oversight a formal complaint to the forcing it to strip Media
royalty fees too high for European regulators
of some of MS’ business EU that targets the Player from Windows. A
interoperability information, formally move to seek fines
practices, citing lapses company’s word processing few weeks later, the
thus threatening more fines of as much as $2.4M per November 8, 2004
under their landmark and other widely used company begins shipping a
July 10, 2006 March, 2006 day against MS for failure Novell, which had raised
settlement office programs version of its operating
National regulators met to MS argues its case at a to comply with orders to antitrust claims in Europe,
system without the music
decide total amount of fines closed hearing open software markets to settles for $536M
and video playing program
competition to EU retailers
2007 2006 2005 2004
July 3, 2006 March 29, 2006 June 7, 2005 June 30, 2004
EU officials voted EU says it has sent MS a
September 17, 2007 EU regulators and MS US appeals court
unanimously to support the letter detailing antitrust
European high court reach a compromise that unanimously approves
European Commission’s concerns with the
dismissed nearly all of delays the imposition of settlement with Justice
plan to levy further fines, company’s new Vista
MS’appeal of 2004 large daily fines for the Dept, rejecting objections
which could add up to operating system January 26, 2006 December 22, 2004
decision, upholding April, 2005 company’s failure to comply from Massachusetts that
$2.6M per day, against MS MS offered to allow rivals An EU court rejects MS
$689.7M fine At a week long European with some of the EU’s the sanctions are
July 12, 2006 for failing to comply with its some access to the appeal of the March order
court hearing, MS argued demands. But several inadequate
EU Competition 2004 antitrust orders proprietary source code of that it disclose trade
its appeal against the major issues, including
Commissioner Neelie Windows, a move designed secrets and produce a
$666M fine imposed 2 MS’ sharing of technical
Kroes announced $357M to head off the daily fines in version of Windows without
years earlier. A panel of 13 info with rivals, remains
fine and threatened new Europe and mollify Media player program. The
judges peppered lawyers unresolved.
fines of $3.82 M per day increasingly impatient decision effectively thwarts
for both sides. A ruling is
beginning July 31. MS antitrust authorities in the MS’ attempt to delay
expected within a year
calls the fine unjustified and U.S. implementation
says it will go to court to get
it overturned
Microsoft
e
Mario Monti was Italian
economist and the Competition
Commissioner, sworn in on Sept
Bo Vesterdorf, Senior EU judge
who presided and ruled against
MS
Original ruling was made before
Neelie Kroes took over as
Competition Comm. , Nov. 2004,
but she is taking a hard line
Chronology
17, 1999
against MS
March 24, 2004
EU fines MS a record
April 3, 2000 November 1, 2002
Oct. 31, 2001 $666M for antitrust
US District Judge Thomas US District Judge Collen
MS and Justice Dept settle violations and orders it to
Penfield Jackson finds MS Kollar-kotelly approves
May, 1998 the antitrust case divulge some trade secrets
violated the Sherman Sept. 26, 2000 most provisions of
Justice Department and 20 to competitors and produce
Antitrust Act, by attempting Supreme Ct. refuses to settlement
state attorneys general sue a version of Windows
to monopolize the Web hear MS appeal of Judge June 16, 2003
MS, charging it illegally March 8, 2002 without a bundled program
browser market by tying it Jackson’s decision, West Virginia quits the
thwarted competition to Sun Microsystems files that plays music and video
to Windows sending the case to the antitrust battle, leaving
protect and extend its antitrust suit against MS files. The sanction is later
monopoly on software federal appeals court in the Massachusetts as the lone suspended while a judge
alleging extensive
District of Columbia state challenger to the hears MS’ appeal for
anticompetitive practices
Justice Dept settlement immediate relief
1998 2000 2002 2004
August, 2002
October, 1998 MS unveils several December 18, 2003
Justice Dept sues MS for business and product Realnetworks sues MS,
Sept. 6, 2001
allegedly violating a 1994 changes to comply with accusing it of illegally
Bush administration Justice
consent decree by forcing Justice Dept settlement, monopolizing the growing
Dept announces that it will
computer makers to sell its including giving users the field of digital music and
no longer seek a breakup
internet browser as a ability to hide MS programs video
of MS
condition of selling its Jan. 23, 2002 like its Web browser and April 2, 2004
popular Windows software June 7, 2000 AOL Time Warner sues only seeing competing Sun settles for $1.6B from
products May 29, 2003 MS
Judge Jackson orders MS, seeking damages for
AOL Time Warner settles
break up of MS into two MS’ actions against thee
with MS for $750
companies Netscape browser, which
AOL acquired

2. Pennzoil v. Texaco Pennzoil wants specific performance- it
wants a court to give Pennzoil back the
deal with Getty; Pennzoil discovers
Texaco contends they indemnity clauses and adds tortious
did not make offer interference to the complaint
until approached by Pennzoil wants specific performance- it
December 28, 1983 Getty January 5, 1984 wants a court to give Pennzoil back the
Pennzoil announces unsolicited public Texaco board meets authorizing deal with Getty; Pennzoil discovers
tender for 16M shares of Getty Oil @ $100/share its officers to make a 100% indemnity clauses and adds tortious
offer of Getty Oil interference to the complaint
January, 1984 January 3, 1984 Case is tried before a judge (no jury) in
Getty Oil and Pennzoil negotiate a Getty’s investment banker, Texaco contacts, Marty Lipton
(Getty Museum Lawyer) to Delaware; Texaco does not answer
“memorandum of agreement” Geoffrey Boisi immediately to the Delaware case and
of agreement for a merger began calling other companies to discuss the sale of the Museum
shares. Lipton cancels associates case ends up in Texas court.
seek higher bids During trial, meeting with Pennzoil to meet
Pennzoil emphasizes that with Texaco.
Under memorandum, Pennzoil
gets 3/7ths and Getty Trust get 4/ths of Getty Oil handshakes took place at the
with Gordon Getty becoming end of this meeting asserting a
January 3 at 3 pm
Chairman of the Board of new company handshake seals the deal; Case goes on for 4.5 months in front of
Getty Oil board meets again, to Museum agrees to sell its 11.8%
review the revised proposal Texaco disagrees jury, the word “contract” is never
holding in Getty Oil to Texaco for
from Pennzoil which is now appeared in jury instructions, the judge
$125/share
$110/per share + $3/per share uses the word “agreement”
Would try to restructure Getty Oil
within 1 year...if not, above would stub at the
take place end of 5 years to each share
holder Noon on January 6, 1984
Getty Oil board meets by phone, Pennzoil presents a single witness, who
withdraws previous counter testifies to the jury about “replacement”
Terms within the memorandum proposal to Pennzoil and
Getty Museum lawyer suggests $110/ damages; suggests $7.47B, because
were subject to board approval immediately issues press release
share + $5/share stub over 5 years as a without the Getty deal Pennzoil would
and terms would expire if not announcing Texaco and Getty
counter proposal...board approves this now have to drill to replace the barrels of
approved at the Jan. 2 board meeting merger
counter 15 to 1...meeting adjourned oil in the Getty agreement; Texaco fails
to produce witness’ who dispute
Pennzoil’s contention
Pennzoil’s CEO, Hugh Liedtke, Gordon Soon after Texaco/Getty announcement
Getty, Trustee of Getty Oil Trust and Later that evening, Getty Museum and Pennzoil issues telex to Getty
Harold Williams, president of the Getty Getty Trust draft press release demanding they honor their agreement. Jury asks judge, “To what extent is
Museum all signed the memorandum. describing the aforementioned Later that day, Getty files suit in Delware Texaco liable for the actions of the Getty
The Trust and Museum combined transaction which was issued the next for declaratory judgement that it was not representatives” even though they were
controlled a majority of Getty Oil morning, on January 4th. And later that bound by the earlier contract with not initially part of Texaco, but now
day, Pennzoil does the same Pennzoil Texaco and Getty were merged; Texaco
did not request a response to this
Board rejects initial offer of $100/share Jury awards Pennzoil $7.53 in
as too low and the subsequent offer of Boisi continues to solicit offers from compensatory and $3B in punitive
$110/share to be too low other companies. After talking with Boisi January 6, 1984 because of Gordon Getty, Harold
Texaco calls a meeting, with financial Texaco and Getty sign merger Williams and Geoffrey Boisi ($1B per)
planning, to discuss Getty Oil agreement; stock purchase agreement
with Museum is signed and on Jan. 8th Texaco appeals, Appeals Court in Texas
stock exchange agreement is signed upholds compensatory removes punitive
with Getty Trust and Texaco because no contract had been signed
January 5, 1984 All deals were signed in New York,
Wall Street Journal reports on Getty and Pennzoil agreement where a contract does not exist
until the parties have agreed on all
of the essential terms; Texaco
argues that a 5 page Texaco files for bankruptcy
Represents areas where Texaco’s legal team made a mistake memorandum could not possibly
cover all of the terms of this
complex agreement involving 4

3. Short Term Interest Govt Budget Deficit
Inflation Rates Trade Deficit
Rates % of GDP
If a government’s expenditures
The greater rate of return
Some market participants fear exceed its receipts, then a
would increase the demand for
the size of the deficit coupled deficit is created. As is true
the country’s currency, which
with the low interest rates with the trade deficit, the
would appreciate in value, as
discussed above could cause budget deficit must also be
reflected in the exchange rate,
financing problems. financed with government
against the other currency
borrowing.
Imbalance in
EU US Favor of EU
EU US EU US
million euro
2000 2.32% 2.18% 2000 31,923 2000 4.39% 6.46%
2001 2.38% 2.40% 2001 42,296 2001 4.26% 3.69%
2002 1.91% 1.75% 2002 65,313 2002 3.32% 1.73% 2002 -2.3% -1.5%
2003 1,87% 2.03% 2003 69,157 2003 2.33% 1.15% 2003 -3.0% -3.5%
2004 1.85% 2.63% 2004 76,128 2004 2.11% 1.56% 2004 -2.7% -3.6%
2005 1.90% 2.73% 2005 89,050 2005 2.18% 3.51% 2005 -2.3% -2.6%
2006 2.07% 2.50% 2006 91,195 2006 3.08% 5.15%
Economic theory states that there are four major factors that determine the exchange rate between two
currencies: the comparable interest rates, the relative inflation rates, the comparative level of income, and the
macro policies of the respective governments. Two of these factors are most commonly cited as the causes of
the loss in value of the dollar against the euro: interest rates and macro policies (both the trade and budget
deficits).