Microsoft @ 25: Impact, Influence, and Legacy Symposium
Friday, February 21, 2025
8:00am-5:45pm
Faculty Club
Lipton Hall
108 West 3rd Street
Organizers
Harry First, Charles L. Denison Professor of Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law
Andy Gavil, Professor, Howard University School of Law
Michael D. Hausfeld, Chair Emeritus, Hausfeld
Scott Martin, Partner, Hausfeld
Abstract
June 28, 2026 will mark the 25th anniversary of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Microsoft. In anticipation of that anniversary this conference will consider Microsoft’s impact on the development of U.S. monopoly law and policy, its influence on the economic analysis of digital markets, and its durable legacy. Although the Microsoft decision had limited impact at first, the case now stands at the center of an unprecedented wave of private and public antitrust challenges to some of today’s largest technology firms. Understanding and evaluating how Microsoft has affected these challenges will be the central focus of this conference.
Registration
Admission is free; registration required.
CLE
Pending approval.
8:00 am – 8:30am
Registration & Breakfast
8:30am – 8:45am
Welcome Remarks by NYU Hosts
8:45am – 9:30am
Keynote Speech
9:30am – 11:00am
Panel 1 – The Development of Monopolization Law
George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart), in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” is given the chance to see what his hometown would have been like if he had never been born. What if Microsoft had never been born? What legal tests would have been available to deal with monopolization? How might the current cases against Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon have been framed if all that the government plaintiffs had to rely on were decisions like Grinnell, Aspen Skiing, and Trinko? On the other hand, might the courts have avoided Microsoft’s act-by-act balancing approach in favor of a more systemic and holistic analysis of monopoly power and conduct? Has Microsoft set the courts down the wrong path—or the right one?
Rebecca Haw ALLENSWORTH | Associate Dean for Research, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Jonathan BAKER | Professor Emeritus, American University Washington College of Law
Daniel FRANCIS | Assistant Professor, New York University School of Law
John NEWMAN | Professor, University of Miami School of Law
11:00am – 11:30am
Coffee Break
11:30am – 1:00pm
Panel 2 – The Economics of Platforms and Innovation
Microsoft’s economic infrastructure included a focused analysis of the significance of entry barriers, network effects, switching costs, and cost-raising strategies, all in the context of platform software. Microsoft’s economics set it apart from previous monopolization cases, but the case was decided before economists had fully developed theories to explain how platforms behave and compete, and at a time when the term “ecosystem,” borrowed from biology, was just coming into use. In what ways did Microsoft lay the economic groundwork for today’s concerns about digital markets? Have developments in economic theory since Microsoft given us a better understanding of how antitrust law should deal with digital platforms? Have we paid sufficient attention to the link between monopoly power and conduct, and the incentives for innovation?
Michal GAL | Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa
Erik HOVENKAMP | Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Steven SALOP | Professor Emeritus, Georgetown Law
Howard SHELANSKI | Joseph and Madeline Sheehy Chair in Antitrust Law and Trade Regulation; Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
1:00pm – 2:00pm
Luncheon Conversation
Moderator: Scott HEMPHILL | Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
2:00pm – 3:30pm
Panel 3 – The Challenge of Remedy
Justice Robert Jackson warned that if a court’s antitrust remedy did not open the market to competition, the Government would have “won a lawsuit and lost a cause.” The collective Microsoft cases recognized the broad discretion afforded courts in fashioning remedies in monopolization cases, but also imposed some constraints. In the end, however, the remedies that were implemented were largely the result of a settlement. Some, including the Justice Department, have argued that the settlement was effective, but many were critical, and the subsequent impact of the decree has been the subject of much debate. What remedial principles and lessons can the government plaintiffs, the defendants, and the courts in the current cases take from the remedy experience in Microsoft? Are the government plaintiffs once again in danger of “losing the cause”? Will the constraints on remedies in law enforcement actions lead to greater interest in regulatory solutions in the U.S. for tech platforms, such as those that are being implemented in the EU and UK?
Alexandre de STREEL | Academic Director, CERRE; Professor of European Law, University of Namur
William KOVACIC | Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy; Professor of Law; Director, Competition Law Center, George Washington University Law School
Fiona M. SCOTT MORTON | Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics, Yale School of Management
Randal PICKER | James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School
Tim WU | Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology, Colombia University Law School
3:30pm – 4:00pm
Coffee Break
4:00pm – 5:30pm
Panel 4 – Antitrust and Technology’s Future
When Judge Kollar-Kotelly initially decided to limit the remedial decree in Microsoft to five years, she predicted that by then the market will have moved on from Windows and the browser to “more advanced technology.” But did the market do as she predicted? This arguably failed prediction reminds us of the challenges of directing competition policy and enforcement with an eye toward future developments. Will the current wave of monopolization litigation meet that challenge? To what areas should antitrust enforcers and policymakers pay attention in anticipating future market and technological developments? How should it seek to resolve the already evident need to account for AI, content moderation, and privacy? What other issues might confront an antitrust policy that seeks to promote both competition and innovation?
Erika DOUGLAS| Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Eleanor FOX | Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Trade Regulation Emerita, New York University School of Law
Avi GOLDFARB | Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare; Professor of Marketing, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
Thomas HÖPPNER | Partner, Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP
5:30pm – 5:45pm
Closing Wrap-up: In A New York Minute
Harry FIRST | Charles L. Denison Professor of Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law
Andrew GAVIL | Professor, Howard University School of Law
5:45pm
Cocktail Reception