Ouch.
The European Court of First Instance on Monday slapped down Microsoft's appeal in three significant areas of the historic antitrust case brought by the European Commission.
In the closely watched case,
which has dragged on since March 2004, the Luxembourg-based court
upheld the Commission's findings that Microsoft abused its dominant
position in the market.
The highlights:
Interoperability. The court agreed with the Commission that
Microsoft was stifling competition by withholding certain technical
specifications, or protocols, from rivals. The court also agreed that
the Commission wanted Microsoft to share only the system protocols, and
not its source code. After all, not everyone wants to be "like"
Microsoft.
"The court rejects Microsoft's claims that the degree of
interoperability required by the Commission is intended in reality to
enable competing work group server operating systems to function in
every respect like a Windows system and, accordingly, to enable
Microsoft's competitors to clone or reproduce its products," the Court
of First Instance stated in its decision.
The decision further noted that "the court considers that the
Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating
systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with
Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating
systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably--the absence
of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's
competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition
will be eliminated."
Bundling. The court upheld the Commission's decision that
Microsoft was bundling two products together--the Windows operating
system and its Windows Media Player--as a means to lock out
competition.
"The court considers that the factors on which the Commission
based its conclusion that there was abusive tying are correct and
consistent with Community law."
The decision was based on four factors, which, in court
parlance, are as follows: the concerned company must have a dominant
position in the market for the tying product (the Windows operating
system, in this case); the tying product and tied product (Media
Player) must be two separate products; consumers don't have a choice to
obtain the tying product without the tied product; and the practice
must foreclose competition.
"In respect of each of those factors, the court considers that the Commission's decision is well founded," the ruling said.
The fine. What about that megafine--the one for 497 million Euros, or $613 million that was part of the Commission's March 2004 order?
Microsoft is stuck with the bill.
"The Court finds 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. Since the abuse of the dominant position is
confirmed by the Court, the amount of the fine remains unchanged at EUR
497 million," the court ruled.
Microsoft can appeal the court's decision to the Court of
Justice of the European Communities. But the appeal is limited only to
points of law.
Round three, anyone?
UPDATE:
Microsoft isn't yet ready to say whether it will seek an audience with
the European Court of Justice, but one thing the software giant plans
to do is comb through the full decision.
Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, noted that while it
was clear the court agreed with the Commission on a number of points,
Microsoft appreciated that the court had sided with the software maker
on the issue of the Commission using a monitoring trustee to help it evaluate the technicalities of the case, Smith said during a press conference in Europe.
"The court criticizes, in particular, the obligation imposed on
Microsoft to allow the monitoring trustee, independently of the
Commission, access to its information, documents, premises and
employees and also to the source code of its relevant products. It
observes that no limit in time is envisaged for the continuing
intervention of the trustee," the court stated.
As a result, Microsoft is no longer holding the bill for all costs associated with the monitoring trustee.
And the court also reigned in the power of the trustee, finding the
Commission has no authority to compel Microsoft to grant the trustee
powers which the Commission is not authorized to confer on a third
party.
Smith also said that Microsoft has been working hard to comply
with the March 2004 order and that progress has been made. He added
that he hopes the court's decision will bring further clarity to the
issue of interoperability, as well.
source:
link
holy moly 497 million euros fine
ahahaha love massive those EU guys in Luxembourg 
OUCH!
