Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's EU Appeal is Ready
psic writes "According to techworld, Microsoft plans on lodging its official appeal to the European Commission concerning the EC's decision to fine the software giant 497.2 million euros, as well as forcing them to open up part of the code of Windows, "so other products could interoperate with it better".
It's taken Microsoft a couple of months, but their appeal is ready. One interesting thing is the fact that an appeal will take at least three years to conclude. But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."
Uh... they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player built in?
Microsoft was required to unbundle Media Player, so that other third-party players would have a chance at getting in on the average user market.
At worst this will launch a DDoS attack against Microsoft's web servers, at best everyone will be using Winamp, or OSS equivalent.
The article is written poorly. Microsoft is required to produce new versions of Windows (without Media Player built in) of the Windows versions that HAS Media Player built in.
In other words: they'll have to release Windows versions that DONT have Media Player built in.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
From what i read back when they lost the case they need to comply immediately (unless EU decides to wait for the appeal to finish). If they win the appeal they get a refund with interest.
- These characters were randomly selected.
The original decision was a determination of the European Commission. This is part of the executive branch of the European Union, and you could see its rulings as equivalent to rulings of the Office of Fair Trading/ Competition Commission here in the UK, or the Department of Justice in the US. There is an automatic right of appeal from such decisions to the judicial branch (the European Court): this is seen as an essential part of the system of checks and balances in the EU. Strictly, the case is currently being appealed to the European Court of First Instance: there is a further layer of appeal to the European Court itself.
The three year gap between government making its mind up on the case it wishes to pursue and final determination of that case in the courts is not that different from what might be expected in the US I think, in a case involving this much money and complexity. The further appeal may stretch things out a little further but not necessarily as (a) the European Court tends to follow the decisions of the CFI and (b) the Court has the power to call the case before it immediately, leapfrogging the intermediate stage (I believe again this is a similarity with the US Supreme Court- Federal Courts relationship, on which the European judicial institutions are modelled).
Its not an insignificant amount...
Actually it is more than you may think. Microsoft's $56b cash hoard is bigger than most investment funds in the world. Hence, they get the best rates, the best opportunities and the best return.
This AC is basically correct. Losing party pays used to be the rule until the new Civil Procedure Rules came into force in England and Wales in 2001(Scotland and Northern Ireland having separate legal systems).
Now, generally, the losing party pays BUT if you've been unreasonable (e.g. by refusing to settle a case, then winning, but by less than the amount you were offered to make a deal), the winner can now get stumped with the loser's legal costs (from the date the offer was made).
AFAIK and IANAL but I thought most Commonwealth countries had a system of losing party pays. US is somewhat different, I think.
This case is going to be different again though as it is brought by the European Commission, in the European Courts where national laws and court procedure are irrelevant.
For the record "monopoly" is shorthand for "dominant position" which is what Microsoft was accused of having abused. Note that under U.S. law (as I understand it) it's illegal to try to attain a monopoly position, something which is perfectly legal in the EU. What is illegal in the EU is *abuse* of a dominant position. Microsoft certainly does have a dominant position in the European Union in the OS and Office-suite markets. From my perspective as an EU lawyer the case revolved around abuses of Microsoft's dominant position in the European Union. The fact that Microsoft is an American company is irrelevant. It's easy to assume this is anti-American action by the EU, but the truth is that other than (we hope) resulting in a lowering of the prices of Microsoft products so that its gross margins more accurately reflect those enjoyed by other companies (from which the benefit is to the consumer) the major benefit will be to the other US companies (Winamp, Real Networks, Musicmatch) which will be able to sell the products to slip in the space where media player once was...
it a quote from southpark and its a defence that just doesnt make sense...
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
most computers already ARE sold with another media player. Musicmatch jukebox and realplayer immediately come to mind
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)