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
Senator Warner Calls for Treasury Oversight on Big Tech Sanctions
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Industry Minister Targets Grocery Giants with Antitrust Changes
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
DOT Issues Provisional Ruling Ending Delta-Aeroméxico Partnership
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
US Targets China with Proposed Rules on Cloud Giants in AI Development
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Australia’s ACCC Finds Limited Evidence of Profiteering in Childcare Sector Despite Soaring Fees
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Object Identity
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI