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
Trump Nominates Two DOJ Lawyers to Federal Bench Before Midterms
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Faces Fresh Legal Challenge Over Streaming
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
Merck to Buy Silence Therapeutics for $1.3 Billion in RNA Drug Push
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
Weil Adds Antitrust Partner From Paul Weiss in New York
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
Warren Raises Antitrust Alarm Over Sysco’s $29B Restaurant Depot Deal
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
In Praise of Theories of Benefits
Oct 19, 2026 by
Cyril Hariton & Pierre Regibeau
Closing the Efficiencies Gap
Oct 19, 2026 by
Kasia Czapracka & Marika Harjula
Analysis of Dynamic Trade-Offs Under the New Guidelines: Would Cases Like Amazon/Irobot Turn Out Differently?
Oct 19, 2026 by
Oliver Latham, Sam Marden, Saul Mendelsohn & Serge Moresi
Exploitative Portfolio Effects In EU Merger Control: From Mars/Kellanova to the Draft Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
Niels Baeten, Danette Chan & Elizabeth Malik