Final answer:
The question deals with Microsoft's antitrust case in 2000, where the company was initially ordered to split due to unfair competition but later reached a settlement to end restrictive practices. The case led Microsoft to increase lobbying efforts to influence legislation and regulations.
Step-by-step explanation:
In April 2000, a federal court ruled against Microsoft Corporation, finding the company guilty of unfair competition. The court's initial recommendation was for Microsoft to be divided into two separate entities to foster competition. Yet, this ruling was later overturned on appeal, leading to a November 2002 settlement in which Microsoft agreed to cease its restrictive practices.
The antitrust case against Microsoft highlighted the complexities surrounding anticompetitive behavior and the legal implications of such practices. As a consequence of the antitrust case, Microsoft significantly increased its investment in lobbying. This strategic change can be justified financially, as lobbying can help shape legislation and regulations that affect the company's operations and potential legal challenges.