EU ruling deals setback to Microsoft

A European court dealt a severe blow to Microsoft's competitive ambitions in Europe Monday by siding with regulators in an antitrust case against the company.

In its ruling, the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance upheld European Commission claims that Microsoft abused its dominant position in the operating system market. Microsoft's allies and competitors have been closely following the case since the Commission imposed antitrust sanctions against the company in early 2004.

The court's decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for consumers, computer makers, Microsoft competitors and, perhaps most pointedly, the Commission's ability to regulate technology companies on antitrust matters, legal experts and industry observers say.

"The court ruling is...welcome for its confirmation of the Commission's decision and its underlying policy, but nevertheless, it is bittersweet," Neelie Kroes, the Commission's Competition Commissioner, said during a press conference Monday. "Bittersweet because the court has confirmed the Commission's view that consumers are suffering at the hands of Microsoft."

Kroes added that should Microsoft comply with the Commission's order, she expects to see a "significant drop" in Microsoft's overwhelming market share.

And while she gave no estimate of how steep she expects that drop to be, Kroes noted that it would likely be more than a few percentage points as more competitors enter the market. Microsoft's Windows operating system runs on about 95 percent of the world's personal computers.

Related video
Court rules against Microsoft
Luxembourg-based court orders Microsoft to share protocols with its competitors and pay a $613 million fine the EC had required.

"A market share less than 95 percent is a way to measure the success (of the order)," she added. A spokesman for Kroes later clarified that a fall in market share would be a logical consequence of fairer competition.

The top antitrust regulator for the Commission also noted that it is "too early" to discuss whether there are any antitrust issues in Vista. But she added that some information may be available "not too far from now."

The 13-member court ruled that the Commission was justified in requiring Microsoft to share certain technical specifications, or protocols, with rivals so their products would work with Microsoft's Windows operating system. The Commission is also requiring Microsoft to offer an unbundled option to consumers when tying together two separate products, such as Windows and the company's Media Player software.

The court also upheld the $613 million fine imposed by the Commission, according to documents detailing the ruling.

Monday's verdict could ultimately force Microsoft to change its business practices, at least in Europe, observers say. It could also embolden antitrust regulators to pursue Microsoft in other countries.

However, the ruling likely will have no bearing on Microsoft's business in the United States. The company settled a long-running antitrust case here in 2002.

Related video
EC reacts to victory against Microsoft
Commissioner calls the ruling bittersweet and expects to see a significant drop in Microsoft's market share if company complies with order.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday issued a statement critical of the Commission's decision. "We are...concerned that the standard applied to unilateral conduct by the (Court of First Instance), rather than helping consumers, may have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition. In the United States, the antitrust laws are enforced to protect consumers by protecting competition, not competitors," Thomas O. Barnett, assistant attorney general for the department's antitrust division, said in the statement.

Microsoft has not indicated whether it will pursue an appeal of Monday's verdict to the European Court of Justice, the highest court in Europe.

"The decision is not what we had hoped for and to say anything less would be less than candid," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, said during a press conference on Monday.

While acknowledging that the court sided with the Commission on key points, the company took some solace in the fact that the court annulled the Commission's imposition of an independent trustee to monitor compliance, Smith said.

He added that Microsoft has made progress on the interoperability issues, but that more work needs to be done and will be addressed as quickly as possible.

Previously, the Commission believed the pricing Microsoft was going to charge for licensing its protocols was too steep, but the software giant responded by dropping the fee to 1 percent of revenues generated from its products, Smith noted.

"If the European Commission still believes that is still too high, we want to understand (their concerns) and quickly address it," he said.

Microsoft, however, believes it has a "complete and accurate" set of technical specifications that companies have begun to license, and Smith noted that he hopes even more licensees will sign on.

As for Media Player, Smith said Microsoft has offered an unbundled version of its Windows operating system and Media Player for more than two years, and, as a result, believes it is in full compliance with the Commission's 2004 order.

Minor victory
Microsoft took some solace in the minor win the Court awarded it over the Commission's use of a monitoring trustee, Smith said.

As a result of the ruling, Microsoft is not responsible for paying all the costs associated with the monitoring trustee. The court also reined in the power of the trustee, finding that the Commission has no authority to compel Microsoft to grant the trustee powers that the Commission is not authorized to confer on a third party.

Smith emphasized the progress Microsoft has made over the years to comply with the Commission's order and said he remains hopeful the court's order will bring further clarity to the issue.

"We have been working hard over the last few years to address these issues," Smith said. "Everyone agrees, for example, that the version of Windows that we offer in Europe today is in compliance with the Commission's 2004 decision."

Nonetheless, the court chided Microsoft on its behavior regarding interoperability issues.

"The court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably...the absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated," the court said in its ruling.

Microsoft and the Commission had particularly contentious disagreements over the issue of interoperability, with Microsoft and the Commission clashing on the extent to which the company's technical information should be shared with rivals.

"The court rejects Microsoft's claims that the degree of interoperability required by the Commission is intended in reality to enable competing work group server operating systems to function in every respect like a Windows system and, accordingly, to enable Microsoft's competitors to clone or reproduce its products," the court said.

More from News.com on this story's topics

Europe

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Antitrust

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Lawsuits

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Microsoft

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
commission, antitrust, market share, court, European Union

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 39 comments (Page 1 of 2)
This "European court...
by Commander_Spock September 17, 2007 1:03 PM PDT
... along with the so-called regulators in the EU should stop wasting people's time and other resources by trying to focus attention on non International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) approved products; just when are they going to wake up to real threats (not the U.S. based Microsoft Corporation) such as global warming! How many French citizens and residents died on 9/11? Now, that was a real and present threat! Microsoft should tell the EU to go to hell and pull all of their operations out of the EU market!
Reply to this comment View all 5 replies
How is this going to reduce market share?
by NickH September 17, 2007 1:43 PM PDT
Microsoft as 95% market share for desktop/client PCs, not servers. How will increased competition for "Windows compatible" workgroup server OSes reduce that?
Reply to this comment
A Possible Solution
by Paninteas September 17, 2007 2:14 PM PDT
If the powers that be would really like to stop preditory practices, they have the power to do it. The patent/copy rights are granted by the governments. When an intity uses its monopoly to unlawfully thwart competition, and would pay any find to stop the practices, eliminate the problem. Take their patent/copy rights away. Micro$oft was basically on trial for using all OS before XP. They weren't complient, they'd rather pay the fine, and continue to be out of compliance. Take their ability away to control the previous OS, they're not supporting them anyway. Anything in those OS would be available to anyone for developement. Anything in the new OS that is not in the old OS would still be protected. Some entity could take say Windows 98 SE upgrade it, sell the upgrade along with a copy of Windows 98 SE which is now available for copy and distribution without Micro$oft's ability to stop it. Walla almost instant competition. to present day Micro$oft. It would also deter Micro$oft or any other monopoly from abusing an order to cease in desist. Make them more willing to compy with requests from the powers that be. Governments take guns away if guns are miss used, cars, pets, children, why not a patent/copyright? They would only be taking away the protection they afforded to the intities now, not the product.
Reply to this comment
Congratulations to EU
by Newspeak finder September 17, 2007 2:40 PM PDT
Congratulations to the EU for upholding the simple principle that if you want to do business in the EU you need to obey the laws of the EU. If you don't want to obey European laws please take your business elsewhere.
Reply to this comment View reply
Backfiring for US competitors
by Considerate One September 17, 2007 3:04 PM PDT
Now it's Microsoft. Regulators in EU now are fully embolded to go after (in order): - Apple, for the monopoly in MP3 players - Adobe, for the monopoly in editing tools and formats, and Flash. - IBM, for monopoly of the last remaining mainframe systems (AS400 anyone?), which are the majority of EU banking backbone. - Cisco, for monopoly in routers, etc. And so on.. The trick is to identify what's a market and define the company's share on that. If you cut the pie the "right" way, even Sun, with its pathetic market share, is a monopolist in some area. These court findings are just the justification EU has now to protect its local technology companies against any international competition through law, instead of quality and inovation, the same way they do with agricultural products, chemicals, etc. The US companies that sided with EU this time for greed will soon realize that you sometimes should think twice before making your wish... You might get more than you asked for...
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
EU Antitrust accurate; US compromised
by rcardona2k September 17, 2007 3:11 PM PDT
Differences in US and EU antitrust directions shows who can be bought/influenced/compromised. Microsoft's marketshare hasn't remained so high based on competition and innovation but rather inertia and institutional bad practices. The market may well provide remedy down the road because geographic wins can only go so far.
Reply to this comment View reply
The European are showing what suckers they are!!!!
by Joelieb1234 September 18, 2007 5:39 AM PDT
What exactly do they want???? To sell Windows, the media player, etc etc all apart so the consumer should pay double the price he pays now and that the retailer etc should make more profit....... They are jealous that the Americans dominate the tech industry... So they want to make some money off it and hurt the consumer and big company. What I call "SOUR LOSER"
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Case study & wake up call for other courts in developing countries ?
by Rudi Rusdiah September 22, 2007 12:37 AM PDT
Thank God, at least it gives hopes for a better competitive legal O/S and application software market in developing countries, where Microsoft control of legal software market share is also very dominant, it might abuse its dominant position (take it or leave it) by setting high price in Indonesia and other developing countries. Consequently, prices of proprietary legal O/S software products can often be more expensive in Indonesia (developing country) than in USA or Europe,for instant in contrast with the price of Mac Donald hamburger or Kentucky fried chicken in global market which follow purchasing power of the people in a country (competitive & fair competition market). Alternative legal products (GNU, Linux & Open Source) are still scarce and less popular, so many still end up using illegal software (pirated copy) that are readily available in the market. Strong lobby of dominant players on the IPR and Anti Monopoly law also seen in many developing country such as Indonesia, where dominant position in IPR products issues are excluded from Anti Monopoly and Unfair Competition law, thus monopoly might exist for IPR products, which made the EU court ruling on unfair competition a start and a wake up call for other courts in global competition in many part of the world today. Hoping it can be used as case study for other courts and countries globally to give fair competition to small players and customer of Microsoft global market dominant products. Association of community internet center ( APWKomitel - Indonesia)
Reply to this comment
I sided with the EU based on principle
by bcroner September 22, 2007 7:09 AM PDT
I hope I get what I wished for. Monopolies are bad for the people of the economy. Monopolies are good for a hierarchical caste system like the US, behooving only the heirs to the vested interests of the monopolistic businesses. In siding with the EU, I'm agreeing that somebody else has no right to forcibly rob me of my life and work value and provide it to their own kids so their own kids can live a better life than me.
Reply to this comment
Bottm Line: Is TOO BAD!!!
by wbenton September 22, 2007 9:20 AM PDT
>>>The ruling likely will have no bearing on Microsoft's business in the United States, however.<<< I don't see why not. Microsoft has time and again been brought up on anti-trust cases. The only difference is that the EU doesn't have America's legal system on their side. The legal system that allows unfair anti-trust practices to continue if you throw enough money to the lawyers! The U.S. needs to learn from this and follow suit and PROOVE this Bottom Line to be false. Walt
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
iPhone 3G queue forms in Manhattan
Privacy advocates praise Google's new link
Photos: U.S. Army names its best inventions
Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week
On day care, Google makes a rare fumble
Most Popular Stories
Photos: Cracking Open the Apple Macintosh Classic
Photos: Army designates year's best inventions
'Netflix box' to carry more than just Netflix
Source: Protective order will keep Viacom out of sensitive YouTube user data
China's military tries out Segways
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Microsoft (0.39%) 0.10 25.98
Dow Jones Industrials (0.00%) 0.00 11,288.54
S&P 500 (0.00%) 0.00 1,262.90
NASDAQ (-0.27%) -6.08 2,245.38
CNET TECH (0.00%) 0.00 1,580.18
  Symbol Lookup



advertisement
On MovieTome: New HARRY POTTER pics are here!
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CBS Interactive sites