“Imprecise legal concepts” are no excuse* The second chapter of the Microsoft saga unfolded on 27 June 2012, when the General Court largely upheld the €899 million periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft for failing to share adequate interoperability information with its competitors. However, it also offered some comfort to proprietors of intellectual property rights, with the Court seemingly retreating from some of the more expansive views expressed in Microsoft I [1]. The case follows the Commission’s 2004 decision that Microsoft had abused its dominant position by withholding interoperability information, upheld by the General Court in Microsoft I [2]. As part of the remedy, Microsoft was required to provide access to the information on reasonable and non-discriminatory
Share on
|
|
The EU General Court upholds a periodic penalty payment imposed by the Commission on an undertaking for failing to share adequate interoperability information (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.
