European Union Microsoft competition case

China Product


Initial complaints

In 1993, Novell said 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.

Sun Microsystems joined the fray in 1998 when it complained about the lack of disclosure of some of the interfaces to Windows NT. The case widened even more when the EU started to look into how streaming media technologies were integrated with Windows. mini vga to dvi adapter

Judgment video grabber usb

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. 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. rj45 to db9

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." Microsoft paid the fine in full in July 2004.

In 2004, Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition; one of her first tasks was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft by the European Commission, known as the European Union Microsoft competition case. This case resulted in the requirement to release documents to aid commercial interoperability and included a 497 million fine for Microsoft. Kroes has stated she believes open standards and open source are preferable to anything proprietary:

The Commission must do its part.....It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession

Follow-up

Microsoft has a compliant version of its flagship operating system without Windows Media Player available under the negotiated name "Windows XP N." 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. Microsoft also appealed the case, and the EU had a week-long hearing over the appeal which ended in April 2006.

In December 2005 the EU announced that it believed Microsoft did not comply fully with the ruling, stating that the company did not disclose appropriate information about its server programs. The EU said that it would begin to fine Microsoft 2 million (US$3.20 million or 1.53 million) a day until it did so.

Neelie Kroes stated:

Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterization--Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then.

Indeed, the monitoring trustee appointed in October 2005, from a shortlist put forward by Microsoft, believes that the decision clearly outlines what Microsoft is required to do. I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.

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.

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 ($4.80 million) per day on 31 July 2006 if Microsoft did not comply by then.

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. On 22 October 2007, Microsoft announced that it would comply and not appeal the decision any more, and Microsoft did not appeal within the required two months as of 17 November 2007.

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).

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 represents the largest penalty ever imposed in 50 years of EU competition policy. This latest decision follows a prior 280.5 million fine for non-compliance, covering the period from June 21, 2006 until October 21, 2007. 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".

In its 2008 Annual Report Microsoft stated:

The European Commission closely scrutinizes the design of high-volume Microsoft products and the terms on which we make certain technologies used in these products, such as file formats, programming interfaces, and protocols, available to other companies. In 2004, the Commission ordered us to create new versions of Windows that do not include certain multimedia technologies and to provide our competitors with specifications for how to implement certain proprietary Windows communications protocols in their own products. The Commission impact on product design may limit our ability to innovate in Windows or other products in the future, diminish the developer appeal of the Windows platform, and increase our product development costs. The availability of licenses related to protocols and file formats may enable competitors to develop software products that better mimic the functionality of our own products which could result in decreased sales of our products.

Related investigations

In May 2008, the EU announced it is going to investigate Microsoft Office OpenDocument Format support.

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." 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.

On December 16, 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. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim. which are accessible via BrowserChoice.eu.

See also

United States Microsoft antitrust case

Criticism of Microsoft

Microsoft litigation

References

^ Abu-Haidar, Lamia (1997-10-16). "Microsoft investigated in Europe". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1023_3-204317.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ McCullagh, Declan (2002-07-01). "EU looks to wrap up Microsoft probe". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Fried, Ina (2003-08-06). "EU closes in on Microsoft penalty". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-5060463.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft). Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, 21 April 2004.

^ "Microsoft hit by record EU fine". CNN. 2004-03-24. http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/. Retrieved 2006-05-19. 

^ Parsons, Michael; Best, Jo (2004-03-24). "EU slaps record fine on Microsoft". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/EU+slaps+record+fine+on+Microsoft/2100-1001_3-5178281.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Fried, Ina (2004-04-21). "Microsoft commentary slams EU ruling". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-5197390.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Hines, Matt (2004-07-02). "Microsoft pays EU in full". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1014_3-5255715.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Open source as industrial policy

^ Marson, Ingrid (2005-11-18). "Still 'no demand' for media-player-free Windows". CNET News.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-5960750.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Macehiter, Neil (2006-01-25). "Microsoft ups the ante with the E.C.". ITworld.com. http://open.itworld.com/4914/060125ms_ups_ante/page_1.html. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ "Microsoft's EU appeal case ends". BBC. 2006-04-28. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4953682.stm. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ "Microsoft may face daily EU fine". BBC. 2005-12-22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4552214.stm. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Kawamoto, Dawn (2006-07-12). "'No alternative' to Microsoft fine". CNET News.com. http://news.cnet.com/No-alternative-to-Microsoft-fine/2008-1014_3-6093104.html. Retrieved 2009-05-27. 

^ "Brussels poised to fine Microsoft". BBC. 2006-06-27. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5120536.stm. Retrieved 2006-07-01. 

^ Lawsky, David; Zawadzki, Sabina (2006-07-12). "EU fines Microsoft $357.3 million for defiance". Reuters. http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-38334.html. Retrieved 2006-07-12. 

^ Microsoft loses anti-trust appeal. BBC News, 17 September 2007

^ Judgment of the court of first instance (Grand Chamber), Case T-201/04. 17 september 2007, Luxembourg.

^ Microsoft finally bows to EU antitrust measures. Reuters. 22 October 2007.

^ Appeal deadline is over

^ EU forces Microsoft to cage open source patent dogs. itNews, 24 October 2007.

^ EU fines Microsoft 899 million

^ Update: Microsoft to appeal $1.3B EU fine

^ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10005379-16.html

^ EU says to study Microsoft's open-source step

^ Microsoft is accused by EU again

^ original EC statement

^ "Working to Fulfill our Legal Obligations in Europe for Windows 7". Microsoft Corporation. 2009-06-11. http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ "Windows 7 Pre-Order Offer". Microsoft Corporation. http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/offers/pre-order.aspx. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ "No IE onboard Windows 7 in Europe". BBC. 2009-06-12. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8096701.stm. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ "Windows 7 to be shipped in Europe without Internet Explorer". Ars Technica. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-to-be-shipped-in-europe-sans-internet-explorer.ars. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ John, Bobbie (2009-06-12). "European version of Windows 7 will not include browser". guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/12/windows-7-internet-explorer. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ Fiveash, Kelly (2009-07-14). "Windows 7 still baking in oven, insists Microsoft". The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/14/windows_7_leak_ie8/. Retrieved 2009-07-15. 

^ Chan, Sharon (2009-12-17). "Microsoft, EU settle browser uproar". Seattle Times. http://www.thesunnews.com/business/story/1219411.html. Retrieved 2009-12-17. 

^ BBC, Microsoft offers browser choices to Europeans, 1 March 2010

External links

Wikinews has related news: Microsoft and EU face off in Luxembourg court

European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) The Court of First Instance's judgment in case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission & background documents. Accessed 2007-09-21

Microsoft Microsoft's implementation of the EU ruling

European Union Text of the European Union ruling against Microsoft

List of press releases by the European Union about the Microsoft case

FSFE's case project page, FSFE have been third-party in the case since 2001

Groklaw interview Georg Greve (FSFE), Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke (Samba developers), and Carlo Piana (their lawyer), these people participated in the case

v  d  e

Microsoft

Board of directors

Steve Ballmer  James Cash, Jr.  Dina Dublon  Bill Gates  Raymond Gilmartin  Reed Hastings  Maria Klawe  David Marquardt  Charles Noski  Helmut Panke  Jon Shirley

Desktop software

Windows (components)  Internet Explorer  Office  Visual Studio  Security Essentials  Expression  Dynamics  Money  Encarta  Student  Math  Works  MapPoint  Virtual PC  Forefront  Home  Flight Simulator  Bob

Server software

Windows Server  SQL Server  IIS  PWS  Exchange  BizTalk  Commerce  ISA Server  System Center  Home Server  SharePoint (WSS, MOSS, Search Server)  OCS  Terminal Services  Microsoft Host Integration Server

Technologies

Active Directory  DirectX  .NET  Windows Media  PlaysForSure  App-V  Hyper-V  Silverlight  Windows Phone  Windows Embedded  Mediaroom  HDi

Web properties

Websites

adCenter  Bing  Channel 9  CodePlex  HealthVault  Ignition  Microsoft Store  MSDN  MSN (Games  msnbc.com  ninemsn)  TechNet  Windows Live (Groups  Hotmail  ID  Messenger  Spaces)

Live

Games for Windows Live  Xbox Live (Arcade  Marketplace)  Zune Social

Gaming

Microsoft Game Studios  Zone  XNA  Xbox  Xbox 360  Games for Windows

Hardware

Surface  Zune (4 / 8 / 16  30  80 / 120  HD)  MSN TV  Natural Keyboard  Jazz  Keyboard  Mouse  LifeCam  LifeChat  SideWinder  Ultra-Mobile PC  Fingerprint  Audio System  Cordless Phone  Pocket PC  RoundTable  Response Point  Venus (cancelled prototype)

Education and

recognition

MCPs  MSDNAA  MSCA  Microsoft Press  Microsoft MVP  Student Partners  Research  Studies related to Microsoft

Licensing

Client Access License  Shared source  Licensing Services

Criticism

Windows  Windows Vista  Windows XP  Windows 2000 (section)  Windows Me (section)  Windows 9x (section)  Office (section)  Xbox 360  Internet Explorer (section)  Refund

Litigation

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft  European Union Microsoft competition case  United States v. Microsoft  Microsoft v. Lindows  Apple v. Microsoft  Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft

Acquisitions

Altamira Software  aQuantive  Azyxxi  Blue Ribbon Soundworks  Bungie  Calista Technologies  Colloquis  Connectix  Consumers Software  Danger  Farecast  FASA Studio  Fast Search & Transfer  Firefly  Forethought  GIANT Company Software  Groove Networks  Hotmail  Jellyfish.com  LinkExchange  Lionhead Studios  Massive Incorporated  Onfolio  PlaceWare  Powerset  ProClarity  Rare  ScreenTonic  Teleo  Tellme Networks  Vermeer Technologies  Visio Corporation  VXtreme  WebTV Networks  Winternals  Yupi

Annual Revenue: $60.420 billion USD (2008)  Employees: 89,809 (2008)  Stock Symbol: MSFT  Website: microsoft.com

Further information: List of assets owned by Microsoft Corporation

Categories: Computer law | European Union legal cases | Microsoft criticisms and controversies | Competition law | 2007 in case law

Footstool

China Product






An Ottoman footstool antique dressing table

A footstool is a piece of furniture, the purpose of which is to support one's feet. There are two main types of footstools, which can be loosely categorized into two categories, those designed for comfort and those designed for function. dressing table antique

Footstools for comfort 5 drawer dresser

This type of footstool is used to provide comfort to a person seated, for example, in a chair or sofa. It is typically a short, wide, four-legged stool with a padded top, upholstered in a fabric or animal hide, such as leather. This type of footstool is also a type of Ottoman and it often referred to simply as an Ottoman. It allows the seated person to rest their feet upon it, supporting their legs at a mostly horizontal level, thus giving rise to use of the term footrest, for this item.

Footstools for function

This type of footstool, also known simply as a stool, is used as a short stepladder or to support a person's (usually a child's) feet that do not reach the floor when seated. In the former case, the footstool is used by placing it on a flat surface and standing on it to extend one's reach. In the latter case, the footstool is placed under the feet of a sitting person so that the person's feet may rest comfortably on it. An example of the latter is the type of piano footstool used in conjunction with a piano bench. It is also used to make the blood circulation of your body flow more freely than sitting down.

See also

Tuffet

Categories: Furniture