Indirect Purchaser and Remoteness Doctrines Barred Antitrust Claims Against Microsoft by End-User Software Licensees* A question arising from end-user license agreements ("EULAs"), which accompany applications software programs that have been preinstalled on personal computers, is whether they are sufficient to create the type of direct economic relationship between the end-users and the software maker that could support an action under the federal antitrust laws. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (barring indirect purchasers claims for recovery of illegal overcharges under the federal antitrust laws). A related question is whether such end-users would have standing to allege antitrust damages claims under the Associated General Contractors v. California State
Share on
|
|
The US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit confirms the dismissal of antitrust claims related to an alleged loss of competitive technologies being deemed so diffuse that it could not possibly be adequately measured (Kloth / Microsoft)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
