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
Apartment Giants AvalonBay, Equity Weigh $50 Billion Merger
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Challenges Indian Competition Regulator Over Financial Data Demand in Antitrust Case
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
EU Judges Leave Final Decision on Portuguese Football Hiring Pact to National Court
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
State AGs Form Bipartisan Task Force To Support Guardrails Around AI
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Brazil Opens Antitrust Case Into Alleged Airline Price Coordination
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Unilateral Effects
Apr 28, 2026 by
CPI
A Net Present Value Approach to Merger Analysis
Apr 28, 2026 by
Joseph J Simons & Malcolm Coate
Generative AI and Competitive Disruption: Increasingly Relevant for Merger Analysis?
Apr 28, 2026 by
Andrea Coscelli, Emily Chissell, Nitika Bagaria & Tega Akati-Udi
Non-Price Unilateral Effects In Media Mergers
Apr 28, 2026 by
Lapo Filistrucchi & Teresa Oriani
Ecosystem Mergers and Unilateral Effects? A Framework for Assessing the Ecosystem Theory of Harm
Apr 28, 2026 by
Ethel Fonseca, George Tucker & Helder Vasconcelos