Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp.

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).