How this document has been cited

In analyzing the § 2 claim against Microsoft, the DC Circuit upheld the district court's finding that Microsoft has monopoly power in the market for operating system software for Intelcompatible PCs with its Windows software, which has gained more than 95% market share.
- in Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 2002 and 63 similar citations
Rather, the facts of this case present an appearance of partiality and, while "[a] ppearance may be all there is,[] that is enough [.]"
- in Bergdahl v. United States, 2023 and 64 similar citations
—recognizing a district court's "broad discretion to enter that relief it calculates will best remedy the conduct it has found to be unlawful
- in Weingarten v. DeVos, 2020 and 65 similar citations
Entry barriers are "factors [] that prevent new rivals from timely responding to an increase in price above the competitive level."
- in IN RE POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST, 2013 and 97 similar citations
I] fa plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case under § 2 by demonstrating anticompetitive effect, then the monopolist may proffer a procompetitive justification for its conduct....[I] f the monopolist's procompetitive justification stands unrebutted, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs the procompetitive benefit. " …
- in Meredith Corp. v. SESAC LLC, 2014 and 100 similar citations
To be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist's act must have an anticompetitive effect; that is, it must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers.
- in Brentwood Academy v. TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOLS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, 2008 and 159 similar citations
Whether any particular act of a monopolist is exclusionary, rather than merely a form of vigorous competition, can be difficult to discern: the means of illicit exclusion, like the means of legitimate competition, are myriad
- in MEIJER, INC. v. BIOVAIL CORPORATION, 2008 and 79 similar citations
To establish "substantial foreclosure," Rockfon must "define the relevant market and prove the degree of foreclosure
- in ROXUL USA, INC. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 2019 and 33 similar citations
Accordingly, the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, and codes of judicial conduct each prescribe recusal standards under which a judge may—or, under limited circumstances, must—remove himself from a case to protect the integrity of the proceedings.
- in Jordan v. US DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 2018 and 37 similar citations
—examining the market before the anticompetitive conduct in order to determine whether a violation occurred, not to determine the relevant market
- in FTC v. Lundbeck, Inc., 2011 and 35 similar citations

Cited by

Discusses cited case at lengthUnited States v. GOOGLE LLC
Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2023
Discusses cited case at lengthNew York v. Microsoft Corp.
531 F. Supp. 2d 141 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2008
Discusses cited case at lengthCommonwealth of Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corporation
Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2004
Discusses cited case at lengthMassachusetts v. Microsoft Corp.
373 F. 3d 1199 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2004
Discusses cited case at lengthUS v. Microsoft Corp.
231 F. Supp. 2d 144 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2002
Discusses cited case at lengthNew York v. Microsoft Corp.
224 F. Supp. 2d 76 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2002
Discusses cited case at lengthNew York v. Microsoft Corp.
231 F. Supp. 2d 203 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2002
Discusses cited case at lengthFederal Trade Commission v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC
Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2023
Discusses cited case at lengthAmerican President Lines, LLC v. Matson, Inc.
633 F. Supp. 3d 209 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2022
Discusses cited case at lengthFTC v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC
665 F. Supp. 3d 14 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2023