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.
Featured News
Bank Regulators Clarify That Crypto Qualifies as Collateral Under Capital Reserves Rule
Mar 6, 2026 by
CPI
States Are Drawing a Hard Line on AI in the Workplace
Mar 6, 2026 by
CPI
States Prepare New Legal Challenge to Trump’s Global Tariffs
Mar 5, 2026 by
CPI
OpenAI Accused in Chicago Lawsuit of Acting as Unlicensed Legal Advisor
Mar 5, 2026 by
CPI
Senate Democrats Target Meatpacking Giants With New Antitrust Bill
Mar 5, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece