D.C. Circuit· 6/30/2004

Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp.

Citations

362 U.S. App. D.C. 152
373 F.3d 1199
2004 WL 1462298

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that the district court “did not abuse its discretion by adopting a remedy that denie[d] Microsoft the ability to take the same or similar actions to limit competition in the future”
explaining that, absent any claim of “inadequate notice,” there was “no reason to bar intervention based solely upon” the “technical defect” of failure to attach a pleading
affirming the district court’s rejection of a remedy that would work a “substantial” effect upon Microsoft’s incentive to innovate and thereby harm consumers
approving “forward-looking” provisions requiring Microsoft to disclose certain APIs and communications protocols, even though “non-disclosure of this proprietary information had played no role in our holding Microsoft violated the antitrust laws”
‘We review fhe district court’s decision whether to grant equitable relief only for abuse of discretion.”
“Massachusetts also complains the district court erred in applying a ‘stringent but-for test’ of causation in determining whether ‘advantages gained by Microsoft could be considered a fruit of Microsoft’s illegality.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Edwards, Sentelle, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.