Cases

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge. A straggler of a case, this one drags us back twenty years. To a time before the dot-com boom busted and boomed again, a time when Microsoft was busy amassing a virtual empire — if sometimes in violation of the antitrust laws. Long since found liable for a rich diversity of antitrust misdeeds in the 1990s, this case calls on us to decide whether Microsoft

784 F.Supp.2d 356 (2011) INTELLIVISION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 07 Civ. 4079(JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 23, 2011. *358 Bruce D. Katz, Bruce D. Katz, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Steven Lyon Holley, Nuri George Frame, Michael Peter Geiser, Sullivan an

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge GREGORY joined. OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: This appeal, a part of the multidistrict class action antitrust litigation brought against Microsoft Corporation by 39 purchasers of Microsoft’s operating system software and applicati

505 F.3d 302 (2007) NOVELL, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Novell, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 06-1134, 06-1238. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: December 1, 2006. Decided: October 15, 2007.

670 F.Supp.2d 568 (2009) i4i LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Infrastructures for Information, Inc., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 6:07CV113. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. August 11, 2009. *572 Samuel Franklin Baxter, McKool Smith, Marshall, TX, Andrew Thompson Gorham, Charles Ainswor

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge GREGORY joined. OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge. In this antitrust litigation, the district court entered an order dated May 27, 2003, certifying a class of consumers seeking damages against Microsoft Corporation allegedly caused by

699 F.Supp.2d 730 (2010) In re MICROSOFT CORP. ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. No. MDL 1332, JFM-05-1087. United States District Court, D. Maryland. March 30, 2010. *734 Jeffrey M. Johnson, David Leo Engelhardt, Milton A. Marquis, R. Bruce Holcomb, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, Max D. Wheeler, S

508 F.3d 170 (2007) GO COMPUTER, INCORPORATED, a Washington corporation; S. Jerrold Kaplan, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-2278. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: September 26, 2007. Decided: November 19, 2007. *1

516 F.Supp.2d 752 (2007) COMPUTER ACCELERATION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 9:06-CV-140. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division. May 7, 2007. *753 *754 *755 Mike McKool, Jr., Glenn Edward Janik, Lindsay

(2008) VERITAS OPERATING CORPRATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant. Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Veritas Operating Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Veritas Software Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Counterclaim Defendants. No. C06-0703-JCC. United States District Cou

503 F.Supp.2d 819 (2007) COMPUTER ACCELERATION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 9:06-CW-140. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division. August 24, 2007. *820 Andrew Thompson Gorham, Charles Ainsworth, Robert Christopher Bunt, Robert M. Parker, Parker, Bunt & Ainswor

297 F.Supp.2d 15 (2003) State of NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A.98-1233(CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 22, 2003. *16 *17 *18 Alan R. Kusinitz, New York State Attorney General'

484 F.Supp.2d 955 (2007) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, The World Online Communications Corporation, and Paul Martin, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, v. Microsoft Corporation, Reginald Hinton, Randy Bradley, and Bradley, Andrew, Christopher & Kaye, Counter-Defendants. Civ. No. 05-1935 (JNE/SRN). United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

DALIANIS, J. The plaintiffs, Minuteman, LLC and Ronald H. Proulx, appeal an order of the Superior Court {Ijynn, J.) dismissing their claim against the defendant, Microsoft Corporation, for allegedly violating New Hampshire’s antitrust statute. RSA ch. 356 (1995). We affirm. The relevant facts follow. Plaintiff Proulx purchased a “Millenia Max 65133” personal computer from J&B Diversified Associa

319 F.Supp.2d 1219 (2004) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. LINDOWS.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. C01-2115C. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, At Seattle. April 2, 2004. *1220 Bruce Braun, Dan K. Webb, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, Karl Justin Quackenbush, Marc C.

GREGORY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I agree with the majority, ante at 202, that Gravity’s § 1 claims need not meet the more rigorous standards of § 2 of the Sherman Act. However, I respectfully dissent. Whether or not Gravity would succeed on the merits, it has clearly stated claims under both § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act. I. The majority makes its first error w

ORDER Appellant has filed motions for stay pending appeal, to expedite appeal, and to file a deferred appendix. Appellee has filed a response in opposition to the motion for stay pending appeal, and a response consenting to the motion to expedite and to file a deferred appendix. Potential intervenor, WildTangent, Inc., has filed a motion for leave to intervene, consented to by appellant. Appellee filed a response in o

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge GREGORY joined. OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Sun Microsystems, Inc. commenced this action against Microsoft Corporation, alleging, among other things, that Microsoft illegally maintained a monop

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN RE: MICROSOFT CORPORATION  ANTITRUST LITIGATION (Kloth, et al. v. Microsoft Corp.; Netscape Communications Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.; Sun Microsystems,  No. 03-1817 Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.; Burst.com, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.) (MDL No. 1332)  Appeal from the United States Distri

ACCEPTED 03-16-00581-CV 14442075 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS