European Commission Again Fines Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations; Microsoft’s Appeals
The European Commission fined Microsoft a record €899 in February, 2008, for failure to comply with earlier rulings related to its commercial conduct in Europe. Microsoft has appealed the fine. The punitive fine is based on the conclusion that Microsoft did not provide reasonable access to information on the interoperability of Windows and software written by rival companies between 2004 and 2007, and unlawfully tied Windows Media Player to the operating environment over the same period.
The latest fine is in addition to a fine of €497m levied in 2004 for the same conduct, which Microsoft unsuccessfully appealed.
Microsoft was investigated by the Commission following complaints lodged as early as 1993. Novell, Sun Microsystems and other firms have insisted that Microsoft was exploiting its position of dominance, as the purveyor of Windows, by refusing to share information critical to ensuring that software written by other companies would operate in tandem with Windows.
The Commission announced its first Statement of Objections against Microsoft in August, 2000. It stated that Microsoft’s failure to provide a full disclosure of how Windows can interface with software written by rival vendors was deliberately anti-competitive and contrary to European law. A second Statement of Objections was filed in August, 2001, which, besides confirming and expanding the previous Statement, documented that Microsoft interwove its Media Player within the operating system so as to make competing software uncompetitive. A third Statement of Objections was issued in August, 2003, which confirmed the earlier allegations with additional evidence.
The Commission made a decision in 2004 after hearing from relevant parties. Its ruling upheld the Statements of Objection, and concluded that Microsoft’s behavior in Europe was in violation of Article 82 of the European Commission Treaty. Specifically, it stated that Microsoft did not accurately and adequately disclose interface documentation, which it is required to do in return for a reasonable price, and that it must begin to within 120 days. The ruling also required Microsoft to begin producing a version of Windows that did not include Windows Media Player within 90 days.
The Commission’s intent was to benefit consumers by stimulating a competitive environment which includes meaningful competition.
Microsoft appealed the March 2004 ruling by filing an action for annulment with the European Court of First Instance in June, 2004. The firm claimed that it should not have to implement the remedies prior to the conclusion of the appellate process. The same day, the Commission voluntarily postponed the time-line for implementation of the remedies until a determination was made whether or not such a course could result in serious damages to Microsoft. The Court came back with a decision in December, 2004, stating that Microsoft failed to demonstrate the potential harm necessary to stay implementation.
In its 2007 ruling, the Court upheld the Commission’s initial decision on both claims of interoperability and Windows Media Player. It also upheld the €497m fine.
The Commission’s 2008 fine is based on Microsoft’s refusal to implement the details of the Commission’s ruling between 2004 and 2007.
Since October, 2007, Microsoft has complied with the Commission’s order, including posting interoperability information on its website. It remains unclear if Microsoft is required to update the information, and at what interval and specificity.
About the author: Jason Hardy is an avid writer on legal issues, including international writing about many subjects including european antitrust lawsuits. Eu competition law interests Jason particularly. He resides in Seattle, Washington.
The latest fine is in addition to a fine of €497m levied in 2004 for the same conduct, which Microsoft unsuccessfully appealed.
Microsoft was investigated by the Commission following complaints lodged as early as 1993. Novell, Sun Microsystems and other firms have insisted that Microsoft was exploiting its position of dominance, as the purveyor of Windows, by refusing to share information critical to ensuring that software written by other companies would operate in tandem with Windows.
The Commission announced its first Statement of Objections against Microsoft in August, 2000. It stated that Microsoft’s failure to provide a full disclosure of how Windows can interface with software written by rival vendors was deliberately anti-competitive and contrary to European law. A second Statement of Objections was filed in August, 2001, which, besides confirming and expanding the previous Statement, documented that Microsoft interwove its Media Player within the operating system so as to make competing software uncompetitive. A third Statement of Objections was issued in August, 2003, which confirmed the earlier allegations with additional evidence.
The Commission made a decision in 2004 after hearing from relevant parties. Its ruling upheld the Statements of Objection, and concluded that Microsoft’s behavior in Europe was in violation of Article 82 of the European Commission Treaty. Specifically, it stated that Microsoft did not accurately and adequately disclose interface documentation, which it is required to do in return for a reasonable price, and that it must begin to within 120 days. The ruling also required Microsoft to begin producing a version of Windows that did not include Windows Media Player within 90 days.
The Commission’s intent was to benefit consumers by stimulating a competitive environment which includes meaningful competition.
Microsoft appealed the March 2004 ruling by filing an action for annulment with the European Court of First Instance in June, 2004. The firm claimed that it should not have to implement the remedies prior to the conclusion of the appellate process. The same day, the Commission voluntarily postponed the time-line for implementation of the remedies until a determination was made whether or not such a course could result in serious damages to Microsoft. The Court came back with a decision in December, 2004, stating that Microsoft failed to demonstrate the potential harm necessary to stay implementation.
In its 2007 ruling, the Court upheld the Commission’s initial decision on both claims of interoperability and Windows Media Player. It also upheld the €497m fine.
The Commission’s 2008 fine is based on Microsoft’s refusal to implement the details of the Commission’s ruling between 2004 and 2007.
Since October, 2007, Microsoft has complied with the Commission’s order, including posting interoperability information on its website. It remains unclear if Microsoft is required to update the information, and at what interval and specificity.
About the author: Jason Hardy is an avid writer on legal issues, including international writing about many subjects including european antitrust lawsuits. Eu competition law interests Jason particularly. He resides in Seattle, Washington.
Labels: eu competition law, eu law, european antitrust lawsuits
posted by European Antitrust Law at
6:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home