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
Senate Passes Sweeping College Sports Overhaul in Bipartisan Vote
Sep 28, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Ordered to Pay $5.7 Billion in Haptic Technology Patent Case
Sep 28, 2026 by
CPI
LinkedIn Seeks Dismissal of Revised US Antitrust Claims
Sep 28, 2026 by
CPI
Booking.com Drops External Price Checks From Key Program Under EU Digital Rules
Sep 28, 2026 by
CPI
Ofcom Blocks Openreach Fibre Discount on UK Competition Concerns
Sep 28, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – National Security
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
National Security in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Toward a More Disciplined Framework
Sep 22, 2026 by
Rod Rosenstein & Timothy Finley
The Department of War’s M&A Review Guidance: What Companies in the Defense Industry Need to Know
Sep 22, 2026 by
Eric Stocking & Paul Ney
National Security, Resilience and the Boundaries of Merger Control
Sep 22, 2026 by
Beatriz Marques
National Security and Competition: Building Resilient Telecommunications Networks
Sep 22, 2026 by
Roslyn Layton