Microsoft IV: The Dangers to Innovation Posed by the Irresponsible Application of a Rule of Reason Analysis to Product Design Claims

Abstract

Notes & Comments MICROSOFT IV'S ALTERATION OF TRADITIONAL ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT DESIGN CLAIMS Judicial review of antitrust law has recently been increasingly concerned with Type I and Type II error,1 particularly in areas of developing technology that subject judges and juries to confusing and complex concepts. One claim that concerns judges due to its high risk of Type I error is product design. A plaintiff alleging a product design claim argues that a defendant monopolist changed the design of her product in a way that resulted in a reduction or elimination of the market for a competitor's existing product.2 Examples of product design claims include a distinctly sized camera marketed together with a distinctly sized film in such a way as to hurt the sales of other cameras sold by smaller competitors3 or a new computer disk drive designed such that a competitor's disk drives could not copy and replace IMAGE FORMULA6 its control functions.4 However, such claims have not prevailed, because courts have readily found legitimate procompetitive reasons that may have motivated innovators to improve their products for the benefit of consumers. Given the ambiguity of a producer's motivations for product innovation, it is difficult, although perhaps not impossible, to fathom a typical case of product design. Such a situation would certainly have to involve obvious and unmistakable anticompetitive and malicious acts, directed solely at harming competition, with no aim toward true and product improvement. There has yet to be a case that seems to fit such a scenario and antitrust scholars have even questioned whether predatory innovation claims should ever be considered illegal monopolization.5 Not surprisingly, courts in the past twenty years have been reluctant to find clear violations of antitrust law in unclear situations and have been careful not to risk mistakenly dampening technological advancement. Accordingly, courts have allowed defendant innovators to prevail if they are able to provide a plausible reason for their new design.6 Specifically, most courts have only required that the new product design be both different and than the previous design.7 The policy behind the courts' approach is clear: It is without precedent to find antitrust liability premised on a theory that development of new products is illegally anticompetitive when the new product requires competing suppliers to adjust their product accordingly .... [T]he enforcement of the antitrust laws is self-defeating if it chills or stifles innovation. Most litigants have successfully defended product design claims because most judges have found it difficult to punish innovators and thereby chill or stifle innovation, based merely on vague evidence of seemingly anticompetitive behavior. Moreover, academics and judges alike have further argued that it is beyond the reach and knowledge of judges and juries to determine if and when a product design is in fact better or improved.9 This call for judiIMAGE FORMULA8 cial restraint is particularly emphatic in cases that involve highly technical or technological products.10 Furthermore, many argue that a factfinder cannot fairly enter an innovator's mind to determine whether the change was made with the legitimate purpose of improving the product for consumers or the anticompetitive purpose of harming a competitor.11 Therefore, some have claimed, the risk of Type I error is too high for courts and product design decisions are best left for consumers to determine by purchasing those products that best meet their needs.12 Notwithstanding these policy considerations, the D.C. Circuit in the United States v. Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft IV) decision diverted from long-standing precedent and for the first time used a balancing test, or rule of reason test, to determine the legality of a new product design under sec 2 of the Sherman Act. …