Europe Hands Microsoft Crushing Verdict
The European Union’s Court of First Instance has rejected Microsoft’s appeal in the long-running European Commission antitrust trial. As a result, Microsoft will have to fulfill the entire 2004 verdict, including a $690 million fine, as well as 80% of the Commission’s legal fees. According to Joe Wilcox, Microsoft’s appeal options are limited and not likely to yield any real results. Microsoft will also have to disclose server protocol information to its competitors, and will likely be forced to extend disclosure concessions to U.S. governments as well.
The 2004 ruling is also the one that established Windows “N” versions, which ship without Windows Media Player and have not sold at all. EC commissioner Neelie Kroes, who has spearheaded this entire case, seems to think that the court’s ruling affirms the decision to require “N”, even though consumers voted with their wallets that the decision was a waste of time.
Anonymous Microsoft employees are venting to Wilcox, saying that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, discourages innovation, that the Commission was influenced by lobbying groups fronting for Microsoft’s competitors, and that the case is based on what Microsoft did ten years ago and has no reason to exist today.
I’m currently reading “World War 3.0: Microsoft VS the US Government” and I can’t but think how this will affect Microsoft in the long run. Ever since the US antitrust trial, Microsoft lost a lot of its “soul.” More and more, these cases seem to be a sort of revenge from the companies that have lost to Microsoft, because, just like it was said here, consumers aren’t really the ones complaining or care [want] a copy of Windows with limited functionality. Afterall, antitrust cases are supposed to protect the consumer, but if the consumer doesn’t seem to be complaining about anything, why bother?
Comment by Albert | September 17, 2007
Just because it happened ten years ago doesnt mean they should be allowed to get away with it today. If someone murders someone does it mean ten years later its not a punishable offence? Of course they are two very different crimes, but you get my point.
Microsoft has been handed its second penalty for monopolistic behaviour, this time from the european market. Hopefully this will bring to an end the anti-trust dramas for Microsoft. They can afford to move on from this and the US rulings, and as a result they are no longer a bully and are now a much better player in the industry.
Comment by Aaron | September 18, 2007
The absurd thing is that nobody truly cares that Media Player is included with Windows. It didn’t kill Real Player, Real did by overloading it with bloat and adware.
Another point is that Apple are far more ‘guilty’ of this practise, including several apps including comprehensive media players with the OS, and there’s far less competition on that platform in general.
Comment by Andrew Paterson | September 18, 2007
Actually, Aaron, antitrust law is supposed to widen the competitive landscape, not punish offenders. Since the issues in this case haven’t been relevant for ten years, the action of the Commission aren’t helping consumers, but rather will help Microsoft’s competitors get access to Microsoft intellectual property. It’s a solution to a problem that no longer exists.
The U.S. courts already did what was necessary to curb Microsoft’s monopolistic behavior. The events in Europe are merely the result of successful lobbying by groups linked to some of Microsoft’s biggest and richest competitors, and that helps no one but their selfish interests.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2007
Andrew, you’re so right. Why does Apple get to bundle everything with their OS? Shouldn’t that be anti-competitive to Adobe and other software vendors?
No, I guess it isn’t, because it adds value to the operating system and puts it in more people’s hands, ultimately increasing the size of the platform and helping all developers who’ve chosen to develop for it. Aren’t double standards great?
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2007
Apple is allowed to because they’re not a dominant player in the PC market. A better argument is why is iTunes and Ipod allowed to lock out competitors? The EUC is looking into that too. So we’ll get technology solutions designed by bureaucrats. Glad I don’t line in Europe.
Comment by Bob | September 18, 2007