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
Age-Restriction Laws Are Proliferating; So Too Are the Difficult Tradeoffs Policymakers Face
Dec 23, 2025 by
CPI
Federal AI Strategy Raises Compliance Stakes for Banks and Big Tech
Dec 23, 2025 by
CPI
Google Sues Alleged China-Based Hackers Over Widespread Phishing Scheme
Dec 22, 2025 by
CPI
Europe Moves to Clarify What Counts as Personal Data
Dec 22, 2025 by
CPI
Larry Ellison Offers $40 Billion Guarantee as Paramount Renews Bid for Warner Bros
Dec 22, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 16, 2025 by
CPI
Learning from Divergence: The Role of Cross-Country Comparisons in the Evaluation of the DMA
Dec 16, 2025 by
Federico Bruni
New Regulatory Tools for the EU Foreign Direct Investment Screening and Foreign Subsidies Regulation
Dec 16, 2025 by
Ioannis Kokkoris
“Suite Dreams”: Market Definition and Complementarity in the Digital Age
Dec 16, 2025 by
Romain Bizet & Matteo Foschi
The Interaction Between Competition Policy and Consumer Protection: Institutional Design, Behavioral Insights, and Emerging Challenges in Digital Markets
Dec 16, 2025 by
Alessandra Tonazzi