Dates in Antitrust Action Against Microsoft
551834
_May 1998: Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general sue Microsoft, charging it illegally thwarted competition to protect and extend its monopoly on software.
36425
Microsoft is expected to hear next month whether antitrust penalties imposed by the European Commission will become effective immediately, or whether they will be suspended for possibly four to five years.
566459
Microsoft&#39;s compliance with a&#160;U.S. antitrust settlement&#160;will remain under court supervision for another two years, in part because the company delayed producing documentation required by the court, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia extended the court&#39;s supervision through Nov. 12, 2009, writing that the 2002 settlement had not fully taken effect. Several U.S. states involved in the case had sought a five-year extension, despite opposition from the Department of Justice.As part of the settlement, Microsoft is required to document information on communication protocols, making it easier for other software manufacturers to create products that work well with the Windows OS.The documentation has been a sticking point between the company and the government. Microsoft has been ordered to rewrite the documentation, which was supposed to have been complete by February 2003, to make it clearer.In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly blamed Microsoft. &quot;Although the technical documentation project is complex and novel, it is clear, at least to the Court, that Microsoft is culpable for this inexcusable delay,&quot; she wrote.But she also wrote that the company had been &quot;overwhelmingly cooperative&quot; in the years after the antitrust settlement, and that this latest extension should not be viewed as a sanction.Microsoft will continue to comply with the antitrust ruling and has built its latest operating system, Vista, to comply with the rules, the company said.&quot;We are gratified that the court recognized our extensive efforts to work cooperatively with the large number of government agencies involved,&quot; said Brad Smith, Microsoft&#39;s general counsel and senior vice president.&#160;
94539
Microsoft won a round in its battle with patent licensing company Timeline.
376608
Investor's Business Daily - A European Union appeals court decision to uphold a 2004 antitrust ruling against Microsoft means tough restrictions on the firm will stick and could embolden the EU in other probes against Microsoft and other big companies.
300239
The date that Microsoft will find out if it has to reform its business practices in Europe has been set - Xmas. The European Union judge deciding the matter has said he will
694865
As judgment day in the nine-year-long antitrust battle between Microsoft and the European Commission draws near, neither side in the protracted dispute knows for sure how it will react to the news on the day.
664846
Microsoft Corp., state regulators and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will get more time to argue whether the antitrust settlement against the company should be extended until 2012.
737210
A decision on whether to suspend the EU antitrust ruling against Microsoft will be taken between 18 and 20 December. The testimonies brought against Microsoft by Novell and the Computer and Communications
291988
(InfoWorld) - The European Court of First Instance will give its long-awaited verdict in Microsoft's antitrust appeal on Sept. 17, people involved in the matter said Tuesday. It is by far the biggest antitrust case ever referred to the European Union's second highest court. The outcome of the appeal, which will have taken more than three years, will influence the future shape of the software industry and be a reference point for future antitrust cases, especially those in the fast-changing world of information technology. The European CommissionÂ ruled in 2004Â that Microsoft had abused the dominant position of its Windows OS to muscle in on other sectors of the software market. By bundling Windows Media Player, its audio and video playing software, into Windows, Microsoft competed unfairly against rivals such as Real Networks and Apple, the Commission ruled. And by failing to share technical information about how to interoperate with Windows PCs, Microsoft managed to steal a march in the market for low-end server operating systems. Microsoft appealedÂ both threads of that ruling, and in April last year the court held a three-day hearing at which the Commission and Microsoft, together with their respective software industry allies, tried to convince the judges of their arguments. There are four possible outcomes of September's decision, two of which are clear cut but unlikely, and the other two mixed and more probable. First clear-cut but unlikely outcome: the court sides with the Commission on both parts of the case -- media player and server interoperability. It deems Microsoft an obstacle to innovation in the software industry and orders the immediate break-up of the company, effectively appropriating the Windows operating system and making it a public utility. Second clear cut but unlikely outcome: the court sides with Microsoft on both counts. It declares that the break-neck speed of change in the IT industry is defined by a string of monopolies and that one monopoly is inevitably overtaken by another in time. Therefore, regulators should not apply antitrust laws too strictly, and should allow dominant operators such as Microsoft to use all means to prolong and expand their dominance of a market. More likely, the court will give a mixed ruling. It may side with the Commission on interoperability but uphold Microsoft's appeal of the bundling ruling. Microsoft is ordered to release all interoperability information to rivals immediately. The result would be growth of Microsoft's largest direct rivals, at its expense, and a flattening of the software market as we know it today, with Microsoft brought slightly more into line with the likes of Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and IBM. It would also open up Microsoft Office to open source software rivals, who until now have been marginalized in the lucrative desktop application market. However, Microsoft would no longer need to sell a second version of Windows with the Media Player stripped out, which it has been forced to do in Europe today, and it would most probably bundle more and more features with Windows in future, to the likely detriment of any halfway successful innovation from a software developer such as Google. In a nutshell, this outcome would restore fair competition in the software markets that existed in the 20th century but it would do nothing to impede Microsoft from muscling in on new markets that have already started to emerge this century. Alternatively, Microsoft could lose the bundling argument but win on the interoperability side. The Court orders Microsoft to set up a separate company to sell a completely unbundled version of Windows, a turbo-charged "edition N," if you like (the name for its version of Windows without Media Player). This separate entity would be free to compete with the fully bundled version, and free to strike partnerships with any other software developer. However, Microsoft could still withhold information about Windows from rivals to handicap them in some markets, such as the low-end server operating system market. This would allow Microsoft to dominate the traditional, office-based computing environment, at the expense of rivals such as Sun Microsystems, IBM, and Oracle. Put simply, this outcome would secure Microsoft in all the fat, but mature markets connected to the office environment, but would limit its ability to fend off challenges in new fields linked to the Internet. The third of these outcomes is the likeliest, according to lawyers following the case, although none would be quoted predicting the court's decision. Â
548263
Microsoft has dropped two outstanding appeals of European antitrust rulings, following the deal struck with the European Commission at the beginning of this week, the company said in a statement Wednesday.
677433
Wednesday&#39;s ruling will be on whether the European Union penalties assessed against Microsoft -- including the largest antitrust fine ever levied by the European Commission and the requirement
362082
U.S. states are requesting a five-year extension of the 2002 antitrust judgment against Microsoft.
256634
Microsoft Corp., the world&#39;s largest software maker, will learn today whether it must immediately comply with a European Union antitrust order or can delay implementing the measures for two years or more.
676321
Microsoft has dropped two outstanding appeals of European antitrust rulings, following the deal struck with the European Commission at the beginning of this week, the company said in a statement Wednesday.Last year, Microsoft appealed the &#8364;280.5 million fine it incurred for failing to provide interoperability protocols to rivals, as required in the landmark 2004 European Commission antitrust ruling. The appeal was filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI).It also appealed against the Commission&#39;s demands that it make the protocols available to open-source software developers.However, in light of&#160;the agreement reached between Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes&#160;on Monday, these appeals became redundant.Less than a month after suffering&#160;a crushing defeat in its original appeal of the 2004 ruling, Microsoft said Monday it would finally comply with that ruling. All the required interoperability protocols would be made available to the open-source community and the price for them would be slashed, Microsoft said.The two outstanding appeals to the CFI were no longer necessary, said Erich Andersen, European General Counsel for Microsoft.&quot;We believe it&#39;s important at this stage to focus all of our energies on complying with our legal obligations and strengthening our constructive relationship with the European Commission,&quot; he said in the statement.The Commission welcomed the withdrawal of the appeals, spokesman Jonathan Todd said.The only loose end remaining in the nine-year long antitrust battle between the world&#39;s biggest software maker and Europe&#39;s top competition authority is the calculation of fines still to be paid for Microsoft&#39;s three and a half years of non-compliance.The &#8364;280.5 million fine imposed in July last year was the sum of daily fines of &#8364;2 million for not honoring the ruling to that date. When that fine was announced, Kroes said the Commission would increase the daily fine to &#8364;3 million.Microsoft was officially deemed in compliance with the 2004 ruling on Monday, over 14 months after the last fine was imposed. A rough calculation would put the new fine at close to &#8364;1 billion. When added to the &#8364;280.5 million fine imposed last year and the original &#8364;497 million fine imposed in 2004 the total of antitrust fines in the case is about &#8364;1.8 billion.The Commission will announce the final tally toward the end of this year, Todd said.
141707
NOVEMBER 15, 2004  - Novell Inc. last week filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Microsoft Corp. illegally tried to eliminate competition in the desktop applications market in the mid-1990s.
471108
Tuesday&#39;s&#160;raid on Intel&#39;s Munich office&#160;by European Commission investigators marks the latest development in one of several antitrust cases that have dogged the world&#39;s largest chip maker for years. Here&#39;s a rundown of Intel&#39;s brushes with antitrust investigators and lawsuits around the world since 1990:1990Dec. 19: Microprocessor maker Cyrix filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. &quot;Intel has engaged in a campaign of unlawful exclusionary practices to protect its coprocessor monopoly from competition by Cyrix,&quot; the company said in a statement.1991June 29: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) informed Intel that it was investigating the company&#39;s business practices.Aug. 20: Advanced Micro Devices brought a $2 billion antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Intel &quot;engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.&quot;Dec. 19: U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed part of AMD&#39;s antitrust lawsuit against Intel because a four-year statute of limitations had passed for some actions listed in AMD&#39;s complaint. AMD declared its intention to press forward with the lawsuit anyway.1992May 28: Processor maker Chips and Technologies sued Intel for antitrust violations in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The claims were a response to a Feb. 1992 patent lawsuit filed by Intel.1993Feb. 4: Chips and Technologies agreed to dismiss its 1992 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a settlement to resolve a patent dispute between the two companies.July 15: The FTC completed its investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices, saying no evidence was found to support charges of anticompetitive behavior.1994Feb. 4: Cyrix dismissed its 1990 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a patent-dispute settlement between the two companies.1995Jan. 11: AMD and Intel announced a broad legal settlement that ended several court cases between the two companies, including the 1991 antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD.1997Aug. 27: The FTC requested additional information from Intel concerning its plans to acquire Chips and Technologies, citing antitrust laws. At the time, Chips and Technologies was a major supplier of graphics chips.Sept. 25: The FTC began a second antitrust investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices. This investigation was conducted separately from the review of Intel&#39;s offer to acquire Chips and Technologies.1998Jan. 13: The FTC decided not to seek an injunction against Intel&#39;s acquisition of Chips and Technologies but announced plans to &quot;continue the investigation into the lawfulness of the acquisition.&quot;April 23: The FTC ruled that an October 1997 legal settlement between Intel and Digital Equipment that included the sale of Digital Equipment&#39;s semiconductor division, including its Alpha processor, to Intel would violate U.S. antitrust law if completed. As a result, the FTC required Digital Equipment to offer licenses for its Alpha processor to both AMD and Samsung Electronics as part of the deal.June 8: The FTC issued an antitrust ruling against Intel. The FTC found that Intel stopped providing important technical information about its products to Digital Equipment, Compaq Computer, and Intergraph after the three companies took legal action against Intel to enforce microprocessor patents they held. Intel also threatened to stop selling microprocessors to those companies, the FTC said.1999March 17: The FTC accepted a settlement with Intel over the 1998 antitrust ruling. The agreement required Intel to refrain from withholding technical information from customers involved in intellectual-property litigation with the company, but did not constitute an admission of guilt on the chip maker&#39;s part.2000Sept. 26: The FTC ended its second investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices and decided to take no further action against the company.2004Apr. 8: The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) raided the offices of Intel&#39;s Japanese subsidiary and several Japanese computer companies as part of an investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices.2005March 8: JFTC ruled that Intel violated Japanese antitrust laws and hurt competition in the country&#39;s processor market.March 31:&#160;Intel disputed the JFTC&#39;s findings, but did not contest them and agreed to refrain from certain business practices.June 27: AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit detailed allegations of anticompetitive behavior by Intel in the U.S., Asia and Europe.June 30:&#160;AMD sued Intel&#160;in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court, seeking more than $50 million in damages arising from the chip maker&#39;s anticompetitive actions in Japan.July 12: European Commission investigators raided the offices of Intel and PC manufacturers in several countries as part of an antitrust investigation.2006Feb. 9: Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) officials&#160;raided Intel offices in South Korea.July 17: AMD filed a complaint against Intel with Germany&#39;s Federal Cartel Office, claiming that a deal betwen Intel and retailer Media Markt blocked the sale of computers based on AMD processors at hundreds of retail outlets.Sept. 11: European Commission antitrust officials announced plans to investigate the complaint filed in Germany by AMD against Intel and Media Markt.2007July 27: The European Commission&#160;charged Intel with antitrust violations. It accused Intel of offering rebates to PC manufacturers that buy the majority of their processors from Intel, paying PC manufacturers to delay or cancel products based on AMD processors, and selling processors below cost when bidding against AMD for contracts with server makers.Sept. 12: The KFTC issued preliminary antitrust charges against Intel while continuing its investigation into the company&#39;s business practices in South Korea.2008Jan. 10: The New York State Attorney General launched an antitrust investigation of Intel. The chip maker was served with a subpoena seeking information on its pricing practices and &quot;possible attempts to exclude competitors through market domination.&quot;Feb. 12: European Commission investigators raided Intel&#39;s office in Munich. The offices of retailers Media Markt and DSG International were also raided by investigators.