BLB News
| Pages | 15 |
Page 55
In 2003, the European Commission sought for Microsoft to reveal the technical details necessary for its competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers; Windows Media Player either had to be unbundled from Windows or bundled with competitors' media players. In March 2004, the Commission levied a 497 million Euro ($613 million) fine and gave it two options: a) two months to appeal, or b) four months to give programming codes to rivals in the server market and three months to make available a European version of its Windows operating system to PC makers. In November 2005, Microsoft released both Windows XP N, which did not come with the contested media player, and the source code of Windows Server 2003. The EU, however, stated in December 2005 that it did not believe that Microsoft divulged the appropriate information of its server software or remedied the situation in a timely manner.
Microsoft appealed the fine and requirements. On September 17, 2007, the European Court of First Instance affirmed them. In addition, Microsoft must pay 80% of the Commission's legal costs. The Court of First Instance cited two separate abuses: refusal to supply and tie-in. In regards to the former, the court declared that "Microsoft has engaged in a general pattern of conduct which focuses on the creation and sole exploitation of a range of privileged connections between its dominant client PC operating system and its work group server operating system."
As for the latter abuse, the court stated that "Microsoft's tying behaviour ensures that the ubiquity of its client PC operating system is shared by its streaming media player" which "creates disincentives for [original equipment manufacturers] to ship third party streaming media players."
This case has had noticeable repercussions throughout the computer industry. South Korea's supreme court will rule on October 17, 2007, as to the country's fair trade commission's allegations that Microsoft bundled various applications in Windows, which constitutes unfair competition. Furthermore, companies like Qualcomm and Rambus, which are involved in intellectualproperty licensing disputes, and Intel, which may have engaged in heavy-handed marketing tactics against AMD, are also fair game for the Commission's...
To continue reading
Request your trial