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.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
EU Brands Apple’s iPadOS as Gatekeeper in Tech Crackdown
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Brussels to Investigate Meta Platforms’ Handling of Disinformation on Facebook and Instagram
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
OpenAI Faces Privacy Complaint in Vienna Over ChatGPT’s Data Handling
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
EU Launches Investigation into Czech State Aid for Digital TV Operators
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
UK Probes Lindab’s Acquisition of HAS-Vent Amid Fears of Market Monopoly
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI