FAQ: EU smacks down Microsoft

The company's legal counsel called the decision 'a disappointing one for Microsoft'

As the long-awaited decision on Microsoft's appeal of the 2004 antitrust ruling in the European Union was handed down Monday, headlines used phrases ranging from "stinging" to "stunning" to describe the American company's legal defeat. But with the ruling weighing in at 200-plus pages, we need a Cliff Notes version, a just-the-FAQs edition. What happened Monday, and what does it mean? Some of the opening-hours answers follow.

What did the EU court do Monday?

The Court of First Instance rejected Microsoft's appeal, and confirmed both of the behaviors the European Union's Competition Commission said were illegal. The first problem, the Commission said in its 2004 judgment, was bundling, or "tying," Windows Media Player to the operating system. The second -- and the issue that has caused virtually all the contention between regulators and the U.S. company -- is that Microsoft used the dominance of Windows on the desktop to jack up its share of the server software market. The Court said the Commission's moves were correct in both cases.

The Court also reaffirmed the US$613 million fine the Commission originally slapped on Microsoft, saying Monday that "the Commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine."

I'm a sports fan. Who won, who lost?

Although experts and analysts thought last week that it might take days to shake out an answer to those questions, it took just minutes. Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, clearly saw it as a major loss by Microsoft. "The decision is a disappointing one for Microsoft," Smith said in a news conference held shortly after the Court rejected the appeal.

Neelie Kroes, the EU's chief antitrust regulator, saw it the same way. "The Court ruling shows that the Commission was right," she said in a statement. "Microsoft must now comply fully with its legal obligations to desist from engaging in anti-competitive conduct."

If you're keeping score at home, it's EU 1, Microsoft 0.

When did this start?

Monday's ruling can be traced back to August 2000, when the European Union's Competition Commission filed its first "Statement of Objections," or official complaint, against Microsoft. The first of five (so far), that complaint accused Microsoft of withholding technical information that would have let other server operating system developers make their products interoperate with Windows clients. The actual ruling at issue Monday, however, stems from the decision handed down March 24, 2004, when the Commission ordered Microsoft to pay a $613 million fine, sell a version of Windows without Media Player and provide rivals with the information they needed to make their server software run more smoothly with Windows.

How long has the Court had this case?

The day the Commission announced its ruling and fine, Microsoft said it would ask the Court to stay some of the Commissions sanctions pending an appeal. "I do expect that we'll ask the court to suspend the part of the order that would require us to produce a second version of Windows that has the Media Player code stripped out of it," Microsoft's general counsel Brad Smith said at the time.

It wasn't until June 7, 2004, however, that Microsoft filed its appeal with the Court, and nearly three weeks later -- June 27 -- that it officially asked the Court to suspend the Commission's orders pending appeal.

The Court held two days of hearings on the stay request on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 2004. A little less than three months later -- on Dec. 22 -- the Court ruled against Microsoft, telling it to toe the Commission's line, appeal notwithstanding. Microsoft had not proved that complying with the sanctions would cause "serious and irreparable harm" to its business, the court said.

During a week-long session April 24-28, 2006, the Court of First Instance listened to arguments from lawyers representing both Microsoft and the Commission. Then, on July 17, the Court announced it would issue its decision Monday, Sept. 17.

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.
Rocket to Success - Your 10 Tips for Smarter ERP System Selection
Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Gregg Keizer

Show Comments



Sansai 6-Outlet Power Board + 4-Port USB Charging Station

Learn more >



Back To Business Guide

Click for more ›

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles


PCW Evaluation Team

Louise Coady

Brother MFC-L9570CDW Multifunction Printer

The printer was convenient, produced clear and vibrant images and was very easy to use

Edwina Hargreaves

WD My Cloud Home

I would recommend this device for families and small businesses who want one safe place to store all their important digital content and a way to easily share it with friends, family, business partners, or customers.

Walid Mikhael

Brother QL-820NWB Professional Label Printer

It’s easy to set up, it’s compact and quiet when printing and to top if off, the print quality is excellent. This is hands down the best printer I’ve used for printing labels.

Ben Ramsden

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

Brainstorming, innovation, problem solving, and negotiation have all become much more productive and valuable if people can easily collaborate in real time with minimal friction.

Sarah Ieroianni

Brother QL-820NWB Professional Label Printer

The print quality also does not disappoint, it’s clear, bold, doesn’t smudge and the text is perfectly sized.

Ratchada Dunn

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

The Huddle Board’s built in program; Sharp Touch Viewing software allows us to easily manipulate and edit our documents (jpegs and PDFs) all at the same time on the dashboard.

Featured Content

Product Launch Showcase

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?