Microsoft on Trial
Show Less

Microsoft on Trial

Legal and Economic Analysis of a Transatlantic Antitrust Case

Edited by Luca Rubini

This fascinating and highly relevant book facilitates discussion on the difficult technical, legal and economic issues with respect to innovation, competition and welfare raised, through the span of more than a decade, by the US and EC Microsoft antitrust cases. It assesses their impact on the evolution of European and US laws on competition and intellectual property in the IT sector and beyond.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: Microsoft v Commission and the Interoperability Issue

Steven Anderman


Steven Anderman INTRODUCTION 1. The judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Microsoft v Commission1 offers the latest judicial pronouncement on the relationship between competition law and the exercise of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The CFI continues to stress that only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances will an IPR owner be subject to a competition law remedy of compulsory licensing because a refusal to license infringes Article 82 EC. It maintains that in ‘normal’ cases the owner of an IPR is entitled to refuse to license because exclusivity is the very substance of the intellectual property right. However, the case has undoubtedly modified and extended the test of exceptional circumstances. Prior to the Microsoft case, the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ tended to be defined by the criteria established by the Court of Justice in its Magill2 and IMS Health3 judgments. After the Microsoft case, it appears that the test of exceptional circumstances may have been widened to include another parameter which extends the test under Article 82(b) EC to certain forms of conduct limiting the technical development of secondary markets. This means that even where an IPR is exploited in a manner that is lawful under the intellectual property (IP) laws, the practice adopted to exploit the IP may, in certain circumstances, be found to be unlawful under the competition rules. It also means that the basis upon which competition law finds a refusal to share IPRs abusive is less clearly articulated. The main purpose of this chapter is...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.