Kelyn Bacon, Apr 24, 2008
In the tying part of the Microsoft case, as in the interoperability part of the case, the CFI upheld the Commission´s Decision. But it did so on grounds that were confused and inconsistent. For all of the central elements of the case, the CFI appears to have been unable or unwilling to set out a clear statement of principle and apply it properly to the facts. The judgment also sets the CFI in direct conflict with the more economic approach being developed by the Commission in its assessment of Article 82 cases. The only clear signal provided by the CFI in this case is that it will not engage in a reform of Article 82 policy. Fortunately, this does not prevent the Commission from doing so; indeed, the legal uncertainty resulting from this judgment makes clear guidance from the Commission all the more imperative.
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