## Facts

- Microsoft held monopoly power in Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems in the mid-1990s.
- Novell owned and sold office productivity applications, including WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, which depended on Windows and certain Microsoft-controlled technical interfaces and related information.
- In developing versions of its applications for Windows 95, Novell alleged it relied on Microsoft’s indications that Microsoft would provide access to particular interfaces, including Windows 95 shell-related information.
- Microsoft later altered its course by withholding, withdrawing, or delaying access to certain interfaces and technical information in the manner and timeframe Novell expected.
- Novell contended this conduct disadvantaged its applications relative to Microsoft Office and helped Microsoft maintain its operating system monopoly.
- Novell sued under § 2 of the Sherman Act for monopolization and attempted monopolization in the operating systems market.
- After a jury trial ended in a mistrial due to a deadlock, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) for Microsoft, concluding the conduct was not actionable under § 2.

## Issues

1. Whether Microsoft’s withdrawal or refusal to provide certain interfaces and technical information to Novell constituted exclusionary conduct under § 2 of the Sherman Act (monopolization or attempted monopolization).
2. Whether Novell produced sufficient evidence that Microsoft’s conduct fit the narrow *Aspen Skiing* refusal-to-deal exception, including a profit-sacrificing course of conduct irrational but for its tendency to harm competition.
3. Whether Novell’s evidence showed antitrust injury and causation in the relevant market (operating systems), rather than only harm to Novell and its applications.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for Microsoft.
- The court held that § 2 rarely imposes a duty on even a monopolist to deal with rivals or share intellectual property.
- The court concluded Novell failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Microsoft made a profit-sacrificing refusal to deal within the limited *Aspen Skiing* framework.
- The court found Microsoft’s conduct was consistent with lawful product design and business decisions supported by plausible justifications.
- The court determined Novell’s proof did not adequately connect the challenged conduct to harm to competition in the operating systems market.

## Legal Principles

- A unilateral refusal to deal is presumptively lawful; § 2 imposes a duty to deal only in exceptional circumstances.
- The *Aspen Skiing* exception is narrow and generally requires evidence that a monopolist terminated a voluntary and profitable course of dealing and sacrificed short-term profits in a way irrational but for harming competition.
- Courts are reluctant to condemn product design changes or interface-disclosure decisions as exclusionary absent strong evidence meeting the refusal-to-deal standard.
- Antitrust liability under § 2 requires proof of harm to competition in the relevant market, not merely harm to a competitor or its products.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for Microsoft because Novell’s evidence did not satisfy the strict refusal-to-deal standard under § 2 or show competitive harm in the operating systems market, making Microsoft’s interface and disclosure decisions nonactionable as a matter of law.


Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013)