Microsoft and Trinko: A Tale of Two Courts

29 Pages Posted: 3 Mar 2006

See all articles by Spencer Weber Waller

Spencer Weber Waller

Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Abstract

In this comment for an upcoming symposium in the Utah Law Review in honor of the retirement of John Flynn, I examine the 2001 opinion of the DC Circuit in Microsoft and the Supreme Court's 2004 opinion in Trinko and compare them as attempts to comprehensively define the law of monopolization. Using the insights of the legal process school, I examine which opinion succeeds as a form of reasoned elaboration and which opinion will gain acceptance among lower courts and commentators in this vital area of antitrust law. I conclude that the Microsoft opinion should stand the test of time as a rigorous, intellectually honest, and well reasoned synthesis of the law of monopolization. In contrast, Trinko suffers from numerous errors of law, fact, economics, antitrust policy, and contains much unreasoned dicta that extends far beyond its narrow holding about the interface between antitrust and telecommunication regulation. Trinko thus fails the test of reasoned elaboration, one of the key hallmarks of a legitimate and persuasive judicial opinion.

Keywords: antitrust, jurisprudence, law and economics

JEL Classification: L43, L41, L12, K22, A12

Suggested Citation

Waller, Spencer Weber, Microsoft and Trinko: A Tale of Two Courts. Utah Law Review, p. 901, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=886143

Spencer Weber Waller (Contact Author)

Loyola University Chicago School of Law ( email )

25 E Pearson St.
Room 1041
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-915-7137 (Phone)
312-915-7201 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
227
Abstract Views
1,535
Rank
243,213
PlumX Metrics