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.
Featured News
Newsom Signs Sweeping California Data Center Oversight Package
Sep 21, 2026 by
CPI
Frozen-Potato Producers Must Face Most Price-Fixing Claims, Judge Rules
Sep 21, 2026 by
CPI
Paramount Reaches Deal With States, Clearing Major Hurdle to Warner Bros. Takeover
Sep 21, 2026 by
CPI
Russia Opens Antitrust Cases Over Generic Versions of Pfizer’s Eliquis
Sep 21, 2026 by
CPI
Google Faces €403 Million EU Privacy Penalty Over Location Tracking
Sep 21, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Computational Antitrust
Sep 16, 2026 by
CPI
The Next Five Years of Computational Antitrust
Sep 16, 2026 by
Thibault Schrepel
When Two AI Agents Talk: A Gap in Detection Capabilities
Sep 16, 2026 by
Alba Ribera Martinez
When Innovation Competition Has No Product Yet: Making General Innovation Competition Operational
Sep 16, 2026 by
Mariateresa Maggiolino
Computational Antitrust for Complex Adaptive Markets
Sep 16, 2026 by
Filip Lubinski