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
Tokyo Authorities Raid Eneos Wing Office in Expanding Gas Oil Price-Fixing Probe
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
States Vow to Continue Antitrust Fight Against Live Nation Despite DOJ Settlement
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
White House Cybersecurity Plan Calls on Private Sector to Partner on US Operations
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
Big Tech Data Centers Become Wartime Targets After Drone Strikes on Amazon Sites
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
Anthropic Sues Pentagon to Block National Security Blacklist Over AI Restrictions
Mar 9, 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