Eleanor Fox, Apr 24, 2008
This article examines Microsoft´s offense in withholding full information to its workgroup server operating systems rivals so that they could not interoperate with Microsoft´s systems as seamlessly as Microsoft could. This article agrees with John Vicker´s observation that the Court stretched each of the Magill/IMS criteria defining circumstances so exceptional that they warrant a duty to deal, and thus created confusion as to the limits of exceptionality. It argues that the Court should have resorted to concept rather than factors (principles rather than rules) to define exceptionality, and that, doing so, it might have reached the same outcome, but in a more principled way. The article concludes, however, that the duty-to-deal outcome in Microsoft is not the only logical one; indeed, where a court ends is a function of where it begins.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Spanish Minister Defends Record as Flood Crisis Casts Shadow on EU Role
Nov 22, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Regulator Signals Flexibility in Merger Reviews to Boost Economic Growth
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Google Antitrust Records Dispute
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Matt Gaetz Withdraws from Consideration for US Attorney General Amid Controversy
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Morocco Fines US Pharma Firm Viatris Over Merger Notification Breach
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI