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
US Appeals Court Reinstates AI Pricing Antitrust Case Against Atlantic City Casinos
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Democratic Senators Seek SEC Investigation Into Trump Media’s Premium
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Publicis Challenges Naming in India Antitrust Investigation Before Delhi Court
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Appeals Court Revives AI Hotel Pricing Antitrust Lawsuit Against Caesars, MGM
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
EU Warns FIFA Commercial Overhaul Could Violate Competition Law
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes