A Retrospective on U.S. v. Microsoft: Why Does It Resonate Today?

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2020-08-25 DOI:10.1177/0003603X20950227
D. Rubinfeld
{"title":"A Retrospective on U.S. v. Microsoft: Why Does It Resonate Today?","authors":"D. Rubinfeld","doi":"10.1177/0003603X20950227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. v. Microsoft case was filed in 1998, the District Court filed its opinion in 2000, and the D.C. Circuit’s opinion came down in 2001. This article explains why the case continues to stand as an important Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization case. Moreover, if restated and reviewed as a two-sided market case in light of Ohio v. Am. Express Co., the outline would be unchanged.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"65 1","pages":"579 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0003603X20950227","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X20950227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The U.S. v. Microsoft case was filed in 1998, the District Court filed its opinion in 2000, and the D.C. Circuit’s opinion came down in 2001. This article explains why the case continues to stand as an important Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization case. Moreover, if restated and reviewed as a two-sided market case in light of Ohio v. Am. Express Co., the outline would be unchanged.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国诉微软案回顾:为什么今天会引起共鸣?
美国诉微软案于1998年提起,地方法院于2000年提出意见,哥伦比亚特区巡回法院于2001年提出意见。这篇文章解释了为什么该案仍然是一个重要的谢尔曼法案第2节垄断案。此外,如果根据俄亥俄州诉美国运通公司(Ohio v.Am.Express Co.)一案,作为双边市场案例进行重述和审查,大纲将保持不变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1