IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v1y2005i3p497-539..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: DID CONSUMERS WIN?

Author

Listed:
  • David S. Evans
  • Albert L. Nichols
  • Richard Schmalensee

Abstract

United States v. Microsoft and the related state suit filed in 1998 appear to have concluded. In a unanimous en banc decision issued in late June 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected challenges to the remedies specified in a settlement reached in late 2001 and approved by the district court in November 2002. We examine the remedies imposed in the United States, in terms of both their relationship to the violations found and their impact on consumer welfare. We conclude that the remedies addressed the violations ultimately found by the Court of Appeals (which were a subset of those found by the original district court and an even smaller subset of the violations alleged, both in court and in public discourse) and went beyond them in important ways. The remedies imposed appear to have struck a reasonable balance between protecting consumers against the types of actions found illegal, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, avoiding excessive restrictions that would harm consumers by restricting Microsoft's ability to compete in pro-competitive ways.

Suggested Citation

  • David S. Evans & Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: DID CONSUMERS WIN?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 497-539.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:1:y:2005:i:3:p:497-539.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhi016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua Wright, 2011. "Does Antitrust Enforcement in High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404, June.
    2. Takanori Adachi & Takeshi Ebina & Makoto Hanazono, 2011. "Option Package Bundling," KIER Working Papers 785, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    3. Wayne R. Dunham, 2006. "THE DETERMINATION OF ANTITRUST LIABILITY IN UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE USED TO PROVE ITS CASE," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 549-671.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:1:y:2005:i:3:p:497-539.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.