United States v. Microsoft Corporation. United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge:
Section 16(e) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, known as the Tunney Act, requires the district court to determine whether entry of an antitrust consent decree is “in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) (1988). In this case, the district court refused to enter a proposed consent decree the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice negotiated with Microsoft Corporation. We conclude that the proposed consent decree is in the public interest, and that the district court…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by155 opinions
- Gravity Inc v. Microsoft CorpCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- John Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin and Aurora Health Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Appellants/cross-Appellees, Nathaniel McQueen Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.