Down here in Brussels, rumor has it that former CFI President Versterdorf is unhappy of his 2007 Microsoft judgment. Here's an article which seems to comfort that opinion. A few excerpts:
[T]he judgment may have what some might call negative consequences for holders of IPRs, which perhaps might deter investments that otherwise would be made and in turn have negative consequences for competition, in particular if innovation were to be discouraged to the detriment of consumers. As was pointed out at the beginning, even dominant undertakings should be allowed to invest in patents and other IPRs, because even when these investments may incidentally limit the possibilities open to competitors, it normally benefits the consumers in the long run
From a purely academic point of view, it may be regretted that the judgment was not brought on appeal before the ECJ so Europe’s highest Court could have its final say in the case. However, sooner or later, either through a direct action or through a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, the ECJ may find the occasion to examine and decide on the delicate balance that must be struck between IPRs and competition law.
The question now: should Microsoft really be seen as part of Vesterdorf's legacy (judgments are adopted collegially by the Court, which consists of several judges).