Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided June 23, 1998No. 97-5343 and 98-5012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWald, Circuit Judge

I depart from my colleagues only as to their interpretation of the consent decree, which I believe unnecessarily narrows the scope of the inquiry that the district court may conduct on remand. First, the majority opinion appears to decide that there is only one reasonable interpretation of section IV(E)(i), notwithstanding the fact that we are remanding for further factual development that may well be relevant to the most faithful interpretation of the section. Second, although the majority claims to have rooted its interpretation in antitrust law in accordance with the intent of the parties,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
  5. Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API