First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube--and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft's new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It's done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn't offer a competing search service.

Microsoft attorney Steve Aeschbacher said Novell is saying it wishes Microsoft would have developed Windows 95 differently than it did.

"The law basically doesn't require people to design their products to the whim or demand of other companies. You get to design your own products. There isn't any legal obligation for us to do what they wanted us to do," he said.

The allegations underpinning count I are premised on the notion that Microsoft had some affirmative duty to assist—or to continue assisting—a competitor. Novell complains that Microsoft harmed its office productivity applications designed for use with Windows 95 by (i) discontinuing the formal documentation of six APIs in pre-release versions of Windows 95, (ii) failing to include in Windows 95 certain functionality that Novell would have liked, and (iii) failing to endorse Novell’s applications by granting Novell a license to use the Windows 95 logo. These allegations are not cognizable under the antitrust laws.

The objective of our antitrust laws is to promote competition. Successful companies—even monopolists—are encouraged to compete vigorously. Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 544 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A monopolist, no less than any other competitor, is permitted and indeed encouraged to compete aggressively on the merits.”). Monopolists are encouraged to innovate and are entitled to retain the benefits of such innovation. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 281 (2d Cir. 1979). Moreover, a monopolist is not required to help its smaller rivals or shield them from the rigors of competition. Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370, 375-76 (7th Cir. 1986) (“A firm with lawful monopoly power has no general duty to help its competitors.”); Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 568 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Antitrust law . . . does not require one competitor to give another a break just because failing to do so offends notions of fair play.”).