European antitrust regulators won a historic victory over Microsoft, on Monday, when an EU court upheld the European Commissions 2004 ruling that the US software giant abused its market dominance.
The European Union’s second-highest court dismissed Microsoft Corp’s appeal against the EU antitrust order that it share communications code with rivals and sell a copy of Windows without Media Player. It also upheld a Euro 497 million (US$613 million) fine — the largest ever levied by EU regulators.
The Commission welcomed the long-awaited ruling in the 9-year-old case with undisguised relief. The Court of Justice only on points of law, opens the way for Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes to take additional action against Microsoft. Guilty of abuse The EU Court of First Instance ruled against Microsoft on both parts of the case, saying the European Commission was correct in concluding that Microsoft was guilty of monopoly abuse in trying to use its power over desktop computers to muscle into server software.
It also said regulators had clearly demonstrated that selling media software with Windows had damaged rivals.“The court observes that it is beyond dispute that in consequence of the tying consumers are unable to acquire the Windows operating system without simultaneously acquiring Windows Media Player,” it said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said the company will study the decision carefully.
Microsoft can appeal the decision to the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, within two months.
The judges ordered Microsoft to pay most of the costs including some of its business rivals’ which had supported the Commission’s case.
EU’s Ms Kroes said in a briefing in Brussels that the court’s judgment shows that the regulator’s decision was correct. There is “no doubt” that Microsoft’s market share will change as a result of the EU’s order, she said. “A market share of much less than 95 per cent would be a success,” Ms Kroes said. “A significant drop in share is what we would like to see. That 2004 decision set an important precedent in terms of obligations of dominant companies to allow competition, in particular in high tech industries,” Ms Kroes said.