Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited?

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Denis Waelbroeck of Ashurst has some interesting thoughts on the meaning of The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited?

ABSTRACT: The judgment of the European Court of First Instance in Microsoft raises several issues. In this article, we will look in particular at the main findings regarding the two abuses (refusals to license and product integration).

Under the applicable case law before Microsoft  (i.e., the IMS Health and Magill judgments), the refusal by a dominant undertaking to allow access to a product protected by intellectual property rights (IPR) was regarded as abusive only in exceptional circumstances, where three conditions were met:

  • (i) where the IPR is “indispensable” to exercise an activity in a neighboring market;


  • (ii) where the refusal is likely to “eliminate all competition” on such market; and


  • (iii) where the undertaking intends to use its IPR to hinder the production of “new products” that it does not offer and for which there is a potential consumer demand.


  • It is essentially with regard to this third condition, the “new product” condition, that the Microsoft judgment introduces significant changes to the existing case law.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2008/02/the-microsoft-j.html

    | Permalink

    TrackBack URL for this entry:

    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e55017816c8833

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited?:

    » The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited? from Windows Vista News
    Did you see the post at lawprofessors.typepad.com [Read More]

    Tracked on Feb 5, 2008 6:00:14 PM

    Comments

    Post a comment