What to conclude from the European Microsoft case?

The judgment of the European Court of First Instance (CFI) in the Microsoft case led to the closing of a 10-year mammoth case. Its sheer size raises the question whether there are any lessons transcending this complex story. In a recent TILEC discussion paper, Pierre Larouche shows that, while the broad criticism levelled by some antitrust commentators is unjustified, the CFI at times opens more issues than it solves with its judgment, in particular as regards the relationship between competition policy and innovation. It seems clear that the CFI intended to issue a judgment from which it would be difficult to appeal. Contrary to a common criticism, the CFI did not display excessive deference towards the Commission decision but instead extended the stricter standard of judicial review recently defined for merger cases to abuse cases. In the first part of the case, dealing with interoperability information, the CFI did not follow the adventurous legal approach of the Commission but instead recast the case into existing case law. In the second part of the case on tying, the CFI supplied the Commission reasoning with a legal underpinning, but did not question whether the Commission remedy was appropriate.