World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Microsoft Corp v Commission

Microsoft v. Commission
Submitted 7 June 2004
Decided 17 September 2007
Full case name Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities
Case number T-201/04
Case type Action for annulment, Appeal against penalty
Chamber Grand chamber
Nationality of parties United States
Court composition

The European Union Microsoft competition case is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Novell over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain information about its server products and release a version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player. Also, the European Commission especially focused on the interoperability issue.[1]


  • Initial complaints 1
  • Judgement 2
  • Follow-up 3
  • Related investigations 4
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7

Initial complaints

In 1993, Novell claimed that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices.[2]

In 1998, Sun Microsystems raised a complaint about the lack of disclosure of some of the interfaces to Windows NT. The case widened when the EU examined how streaming media technologies were integrated with Windows.[3]


Citing ongoing abuse by Microsoft, the EU reached a preliminary decision in the case in 2003 and ordered the company to offer both a version of Windows without Windows Media Player and the information necessary for competing networking software to interact fully with Windows desktops and servers.[4] In March 2004, the EU ordered Microsoft to pay 497 million ($794 million or £381 million), the largest fine ever handed out by the EU at the time, in addition to the previous penalties, which included 120 days to divulge the server information and 90 days to produce a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.[5][6][7]

The next month Microsoft released a paper containing scathing commentary on the ruling including: "The commission is seeking to make new law that will have an adverse impact on intellectual property rights and the ability of dominant firms to innovate."[8] Microsoft paid the fine in full in July 2004.[9]

In 2004, Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition; one of her first tasks was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft. Kroes has stated she believes open standards and open source are preferable to anything proprietary:[10]


Microsoft has a compliant version of its flagship operating system without Windows Media Player available under the negotiated name "Windows XP N."[11] In response to the server information requirement, Microsoft released the source code, but not the specifications, to Windows Server 2003 service pack 1 to members of its Work Group Server Protocol Program (WSPP) on the day of the original deadline.[12] Microsoft also appealed the case, and the EU had a week-long hearing over it. Neelie Kroes stated:[13]

Microsoft stated in June 2006 that it had begun to provide the EU with the requested information, but according to the BBC the EU stated that it was too late.[14]

On 12 July 2006, the EU fined Microsoft for an additional €280.5 million (US$448.58 million), €1.5 million (US$2.39 million) per day from 16 December 2005 to 20 June 2006. The EU threatened to increase the fine to €3 million ($4.81 million) per day on 31 July 2006 if Microsoft did not comply by then.[15]

On 17 September 2007, Microsoft lost their appeal against the European Commission's case. The €497 million fine was upheld, as were the requirements regarding server interoperability information and bundling of Media Player. In addition, Microsoft has to pay 80% of the legal costs of the Commission, while the Commission has to pay 20% of the legal costs by Microsoft. However, the appeal court rejected the Commission ruling that an independent monitoring trustee should have unlimited access to internal company organization in the future.[16][17] On 22 October 2007, Microsoft announced that it would comply and not appeal the decision any more,[18] and Microsoft did not appeal within the required two months as of 17 November 2007.[19]

Microsoft announced that it will demand 0.4% of the revenue (rather than 5.95%) in patent-licensing royalties, only from commercial vendors of interoperable software and promised not to seek patent royalties from individual open source developers. The interoperability information alone is available for a one-time fee of €10,000 (US$15,992).[20]

On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million (US$1.44 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust decision. This represented the largest penalty ever imposed in 50 years of EU competition policy until 2009, when the European Commission fined Intel €1.06 billion ($1.45 billion) for anti-competitive behaviour.[21] This latest decision follows a prior €280.5 million fine for non-compliance, covering the period from 21 June 2006 until 21 October 2007.[22] On 9 May 2008, Microsoft lodged an appeal in the European Court of First Instance seeking to overturn the €899 million fine, officially stating that it intended to use the action as a "constructive effort to seek clarity from the court".[23]

In its 2008 Annual Report Microsoft stated:[24]

On 27 June 2012, the General Court upheld the fine, but reduced it from €899 million to €860 million. The difference was due to a "miscalculation" by the European Commission. The commission's decision to fine Microsoft was not challenged by the court, saying the company had blocked fair access to its markets.[25] E.U. competition commissioner, Joaquín Almunia, has said that such fines may not be effective in preventing anti-competitive behavior and that the commission now preferred to seek settlements that restrict businesses' plans instead. As such, 'The New York Times called the Microsoft decision "a decision that could mark the end of an era in antitrust law in which regulators used big fines to bring technology giants to heel."[25]

A spokesperson for Microsoft said the company was "disappointed with the court’s ruling" and felt the company had "resolved [the commissions'] competition law concerns" in 2009, making the fine unnecessary.[25] He declined to say whether Microsoft would file an appeal or not. Almunia called the ruling a vindication of the crackdown on Microsoft and warned "The judgment confirms that the imposition of such penalty payments remains an important tool at the commission’s disposal."[25] He also claimed that the commission's actions against Microsoft had allowed "a range of innovative products that would otherwise not have seen the light of day" to reach the market.[26]

The fines will not be distributed to the companies that lost income due to Microsoft practices. The money paid in fines to the European Court goes back into the EU budget.[27]

Related investigations

In May 2008, the EU announced it is going to investigate Microsoft Office's OpenDocument format support.[28]

In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."[29][30] In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.[31][32][33][34][35][36]

On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order.[37] The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim[38] which are accessible via The automatic nature of the feature was dropped in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in February 2011 and remained absent for 14 months despite Microsoft reporting that it was still present, subsequently described by Microsoft as a "technical error". As a result, in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million to deter companies from reneging on settlement promises.[39]

See also


  1. ^
  2. ^ Abu-Haidar, Lamia (1997-10-16). "Microsoft investigated in Europe".  
  3. ^  
  4. ^  
  5. ^ Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft)| date=2007-06-02. Official Journal of the European Union.
  6. ^ "Microsoft hit by record EU fine". CNN. 2004-03-24. Archived from the original on 2006-04-13. Retrieved 2006-05-19. 
  7. ^ Parsons, Michael; Best, Jo (2004-03-24). "EU slaps record fine on Microsoft". CNET Retrieved 2006-07-01. 
  8. ^  
  9. ^ Hines, Matt (2004-07-02). "Microsoft pays EU in full". CNET Retrieved 2006-07-01. 
  10. ^ Open source as industrial policy
  11. ^ Marson, Ingrid (2005-11-18). "Still 'no demand' for media-player-free Windows".  
  12. ^ Macehiter, Neil (2006-01-25). "Microsoft ups the ante with the E.C.". Retrieved 2006-07-01. 
  13. ^ Kawamoto, Dawn (2006-07-12). No alternative' to Microsoft fine"'".  
  14. ^ "Brussels poised to fine Microsoft". BBC. 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 
  15. ^ Lawsky, David; Zawadzki, Sabina (2006-07-12). "EU fines Microsoft $357.3 million for defiance". Reuters. Retrieved 2006-07-12. 
  16. ^ Microsoft loses anti-trust appeal. BBC News, 17 September 2007
  17. ^ Judgment of the court of first instance (Grand Chamber), Case T-201/04. 17 September 2007, Luxembourg.
  18. ^ Microsoft finally bows to EU antitrust measures. Reuters. 22 October 2007.
  19. ^ Appeal deadline is over
  20. ^ EU forces Microsoft to cage open source patent dogs. itNews, 24 October 2007.
  21. ^
  22. ^ EU fines Microsoft 899 million
  23. ^ Update: Microsoft to appeal $1.3B EU fine
  24. ^ Asay, Matt. "Microsoft's annual report: Open-source mental block | The Open Road". CNET News. Retrieved 2011-01-29. 
  25. ^ a b c d James Kanter (27 June 2012). "In European Court, a Small Victory for Microsoft". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 June 2012. 
  26. ^ Charles Arthur (27 June 2012). "Microsoft loses EU antitrust fine appeal". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 28 June 2012. 
  27. ^ EU Court Competition Policy
  28. ^ EU says to study Microsoft's open-source step
  29. ^ Microsoft is accused by EU again
  30. ^ original EC statement
  31. ^ "Working to Fulfill our Legal Obligations in Europe for Windows 7".  
  32. ^ "Windows 7 Pre-Order Offer".  
  33. ^ "No IE onboard Windows 7 in Europe". BBC. 2009-06-12. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 
  34. ^ "Windows 7 to be shipped in Europe without Internet Explorer". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 
  35. ^ John, Bobbie (2009-06-12). "European version of Windows 7 will not include browser". London:  
  36. ^ Fiveash, Kelly (2009-07-14). "Windows 7 still baking in oven, insists Microsoft". The Register. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 
  37. ^ Chan, Sharon (2009-12-17). "Microsoft, EU settle browser uproar".  
  38. ^ BBC, Microsoft offers browser choices to Europeans, 1 March 2010
  39. ^ Microsoft fined by European Commission over web browser, BBC 6 March 2013

External links

  • European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) The Court of First Instance's judgment in case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission & background documents. Retrieved 2007-09-21
  • Microsoft's implementation of the EU ruling
  • FSFE's case project page, FSFE have been third-party in the case since 2001
  • Groklaw interview Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke (Samba developers), and Carlo Piana (their lawyer), these people participated in the case
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.