美国诉微软案回顾：为什么今天会引起共鸣？

Q2 Social Sciences

Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2020-08-25 DOI:10.1177/0003603X20950227

D. Rubinfeld

{"title":"美国诉微软案回顾：为什么今天会引起共鸣？","authors":"D. Rubinfeld","doi":"10.1177/0003603X20950227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. v. Microsoft case was filed in 1998, the District Court filed its opinion in 2000, and the D.C. Circuit’s opinion came down in 2001. This article explains why the case continues to stand as an important Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization case. Moreover, if restated and reviewed as a two-sided market case in light of Ohio v. Am. Express Co., the outline would be unchanged.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"65 1","pages":"579 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0003603X20950227","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Retrospective on U.S. v. Microsoft: Why Does It Resonate Today?\",\"authors\":\"D. Rubinfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X20950227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The U.S. v. Microsoft case was filed in 1998, the District Court filed its opinion in 2000, and the D.C. Circuit’s opinion came down in 2001. This article explains why the case continues to stand as an important Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization case. Moreover, if restated and reviewed as a two-sided market case in light of Ohio v. Am. Express Co., the outline would be unchanged.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"579 - 586\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0003603X20950227\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X20950227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X20950227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

美国诉微软案于1998年提起，地方法院于2000年提出意见，哥伦比亚特区巡回法院于2001年提出意见。这篇文章解释了为什么该案仍然是一个重要的谢尔曼法案第2节垄断案。此外，如果根据俄亥俄州诉美国运通公司（Ohio v.Am.Express Co.）一案，作为双边市场案例进行重述和审查，大纲将保持不变。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A Retrospective on U.S. v. Microsoft: Why Does It Resonate Today?

The U.S. v. Microsoft case was filed in 1998, the District Court filed its opinion in 2000, and the D.C. Circuit’s opinion came down in 2001. This article explains why the case continues to stand as an important Sherman Act, Section 2 monopolization case. Moreover, if restated and reviewed as a two-sided market case in light of Ohio v. Am. Express Co., the outline would be unchanged.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量