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.
Featured News
South Korean Steelmaker POSCO Expands Supplier Support Pact With Antitrust Regulator
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
FCC’s Carr Criticizes California-Led Bid to Block Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
EU Top Court Upholds Antitrust Powers to Seize Corporate Emails
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
Uber Launches $14.8 Billion Bid for Delivery Hero in Landmark Food Delivery Deal
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
EU Orders Google to Open Android and Search Data to Rival AI Services
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Agentic AI & Antitrust
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
AI Agents and Collusion: The Two Faces of Agentic AI
Jul 16, 2026 by
Giovanna Massarotto
Agentic AI’s Regulatory Conundrum
Jul 16, 2026 by
Anant Raut
Inter-AI-Agent Competition
Jul 16, 2026 by
Stefan Thomas
Navigating the Increasing Regulatory Scrutiny of AI-Pricing Tools: Competition and Other Emerging Risks
Jul 16, 2026 by
Mark Krotoski & Vinny Sidhu