4 ms·
From your own link: "At the appellate level, the U.S. government dropped the claim of tying given that—as laid out in Section 1 of the Sherman Act—it would have
by tpush 5y ago
From your own link: "At the appellate level, the U.S. government dropped the claim of tying given that—as laid out in Section 1 of the Sherman Act—it would have had to prove that more harm than good resulted from the instance of tying carried out by Microsoft.".
- mjw1007 5y agoNon-rhetorical question: did the change in the ruling party in the US (in early 2001) come between the original case and the dropping of the claim? I'm wondering whether the cause was more "a new head of the relevant department had a different attitude towards antitrust enforcement" (or possibly even "a different attitude towards Microsoft") than "the prosecution realized how shaky the argumentation had been".
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoFrom my vague memories of the time, you are correct (or at least that's how I parsed it back then). The EU decision actually had more teeth though.