"Non!" says EU to Microsoft in antitrust appeal
326052
Microsoft lost its antitrust appeal.  Will this change anything?
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.
241559
Microsoft lost a major appeal Wednesday when a European court ruled that the world&#39;s largest software company must comply with sanctions imposed by regulators and strip features from its Windows product.
703242
The European Union&#039;s Competition  Commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Thursday she could see no way  around fining U.S. software giant Microsoft  for  breaching the bloc&#039;s antitrust rules.
607719
Microsoft's top legal advisor in Europe has urged the European Commission not to insist that key security features be stripped from its new Windows Vista operating system, amid an ongoing dispute.
758333
Microsoft Corp. asked a judge to suspend the European Commission's antitrust ruling against it on Thursday, arguing that secrets revealed now cannot be retracted.
718177
LUXEMBOURG -- Microsoft Corp. asked a judge to suspend the European Commission's antitrust ruling against it on Thursday, arguing that secrets revealed now cannot be retracted.
508990
Computer giant Microsoft has lost its legal appeal to delay a fine and anti-competitive penalties set by the European Commission, Reuters reports.
663718
LUXEMBOURG - Microsoft Corp has began round two of its fight to have the European Union&#39;s sweeping antitrust ruling lifted, arguing it would ultimately hurt consumers and cause confusion in the market.
617929
The Penguin is missing, while Apple's gone to Hollywood Comment For all but three of the past 17 years, Microsoft has been involved in antitrust litigation with government agencies. That's enough to wear anyone down. But as Europe's highest appeals court delivered its judgement on Monday, I did notice some ennui - not from dogged old hacks, but from a new generation of pundits.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.
87483
Microsoft has decided not to appeal&#160;last month&#39;s appeal ruling&#160;against it from the Court of First Instance (CFI) and has finally&#160;agreed to comply&#160;with the European Commission&#39;s&#160;2004 antitrust ruling&#160;that sparked the company&#39;s appeal.The decision to accept the CFI&#39;s ruling will dispel any lingering uncertainty facing software and hardware developers over how to plan future product development.&quot;We will not appeal the CFI&#39;s decision to the European Court of Justice and will continue to work closely with the Commission and the industry to ensure a flourishing and competitive environment for information technology in Europe and around the world,&quot; the company said in a statement Monday.Last month the Luxembourg-based CFI threw out Microsoft&#39;s appeal, siding with the Commission on the two essential elements in the antitrust case: Microsoft&#39;s failure to share necessary interoperability information about its Windows operating system with rivals and its strategy of tying its media player to Windows to the detriment of rival players.The Commission declined to comment officially on Microsoft&#39;s decision not to appeal.
236839
A top European Union judge  challenged the EU executive's reasoning in its antitrust court  battle with Microsoft Corp. Friday, questioning why it opposed  the U.S. software giant's setting industry standards.
718676
(InfoWorld) - With Microsoft's antitrust appeal now decided, the next U.S. technology company to get a place on the European Union (EU)'s regulatory hot seat may be Apple, an antitrust expert said Tuesday. "The decision by the Court of First Instance is a clear signal to the European [Competition] Commission that it has the leeway to go ahead," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and a noted antitrust scholar. "[The commission] now has a license to go ahead, and they have a pretty aggressive posture. I think this bodes ill for some companies." Among those already facing investigations or accusations from the EU antitrust agency, which is led by Neelie Kroes of the Netherlands, are chipmakers Rambus and; Qualcomm, a wireless technology vendor; and Apple. Apple, in fact, will face two days of hearings before the commission starting Wednesday to answer charges that it and its four music label partners are violating EU laws with the pricing structure and purchase restrictions of the iTunes music store. In early April, the commission confirmed that it had sent an SO (Statement of Objections), the agency's term for an official complaint, to Apple and partners EMI, Sony BMG, Warner Music Group and Universal Music. The SO claimed consumers are restricted in their choice of where to buy music -- because each country's version of iTunes only accepts orders from customers who live in that country -- and at what price. ITunes tracks sales for varying amounts, depending on the country. But the commission steered clear of calling Apple another Microsoft in April. "The Statement of Objections does not allege that Apple is in a dominant market position," the group said in a statement at the time. Yesterday, Kroes downplayed any link between the court's rejection of Microsoft's appeal and possible action against other U.S. technology companies. "You may hear scare stories about the supposed negative consequences of this ruling for other companies," she said during a news conference Monday afternoon. "Let me be clear. There is one company that will have to change its illegal behavior as a result of this ruling: Microsoft." Microsoft, however, thought different. During his own news conference yesterday, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, repeatedly pointed to Apple. "Apple has something like a 70 percent market share for digital music," said Smith. "ITunes is far and away the leading source for music on the Internet; the iPod is far and away the leading hardware device for digital music." Even the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in. Thomas Barnett, the assistant attorney general for antitrust, yesterday said: "We are concerned that the standard applied to unilateral conduct by the CFI [Court of First Instance], rather than helping consumers, may have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition." Hovenkamp was confident that yesterday's decision would embolden the commission. "This was a landmark decision and a landmark case," he said. "It stands for a couple of important things. First, it's a declaration of independence, a statement that their anticompetitive policy is not going to be dictated by U.S. policy. Second, it clears the way for the commission to pursue new cases. "You're going to see a more aggressive commission that will go after high technology companies, especially those that are involved with networks or standard setting," Hovenkamp said. "Rambus and Qualcomm, certainly," he said, are among the companies at risk from a combative commission. "Intel? Perhaps. As for Apple, there are some undeveloped issues there." In Apple's favor, he said, are European antitrust traditions that may let the iTunes operator and iPod maker off the hook. Europe's antitrust agency has typically looked differently at two kinds of pricing discrimination. The one where a company prices products differently in different countries in order to squash competition -- pricing products lower in nations where rivals exist, higher where competitors are lacking -- is usually treated harshly, said Hovenkamp. The other type of pricing discrimination, where a seller prices products based on what it thinks a particular country's buyers can bear -- more in Germany, for example, less in Portugal -- are not generally considered a competition problem. "If Apple is pricing differentially because of economies and consumer buying power," said Hovenkamp, "it is probably safe. But if [it is] doing this to suppress competition, the commission may act." Among the possible results of the hearings: fines levied to the tune of 10 percent of global net revenues. Kroes' agency could also dismiss the SO after the hearing. "Europeans are much more comfortable with regulation," said Hovenkamp. Apple did not reply to a request for comment on the court ruling yesterday or on the hearings that kick off tomorrow in Brussels. Computerworld is an InfoWorld affiliate
695641
Microsoft Corp. said on Monday it had decided not to appeal a December ruling by a European Union court ordering it to immediately implement EU antitrust sanctions imposed last March.
3237
Computer giant Microsoft loses its legal appeal to delay a fine and anti-competitive penalties set by the European Commission.
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