United States v. Microsoft Corporation. United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that judicial rejection of consent decree under the “ public interest” standard violated the Tunney Act and that a contrary interpretation of the judicial authority conferred by the Act would raise substantia] Article III concerns
• stating that Professor Arrow’s opinion that the remedies in question were appropriate provided a sufficient basis for finding the government’s remedies reasonable
• recognizing courts should give “due respect to the Justice Department’s . . . view of the nature of its case”
• explaining that, in determining the competitive impact of a settlement agreement, a district court must “pay close attention to the compliance mechanisms in a consent decree”
• observing that “a court should not reject an agreed-upon modification unless it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result” (citation and internal quotation omitted)
• observing that “a court should not reject an agreed-upon modification unless it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result” (citation and internal quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).