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
EU Probes Meta Over Potential AI Restrictions on WhatsApp
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Netflix’s $72bn Purchase Bid Triggers Concerns Over Consumer Choice
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Formalizes Limits on Google’s Deals With Apple and AI Expansion
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Florida Governor DeSantis Pitches AI Bill of Rights for Residents and Local Governments
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
CFTC Gives Formal Blessing to Spot Trading of Crypto on Registered Exchange
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Intellectual Property
Nov 19, 2025 by
CPI
Dealing in Intellectual Property: IP Justifications and Defenses in Digital Markets Cases
Nov 19, 2025 by
Jennifer Dixton
The Evolving Role of Innovation Theories of Harm in the Antitrust Analysis of Life Science Mergers
Nov 19, 2025 by
Michelle Yost Hale, Matthew D. McDonald & Merrill Stovroff
Who Can Fix It? Antitrust, IP Rights, and the Right to Repair
Nov 19, 2025 by
Rosa M. Morales
Copyright, Antitrust, and the Politics of Generative AI
Nov 19, 2025 by
Daryl Lim