Microsoft on Trial
Show Less

Microsoft on Trial

Legal and Economic Analysis of a Transatlantic Antitrust Case

Edited by Luca Rubini

This fascinating and highly relevant book facilitates discussion on the difficult technical, legal and economic issues with respect to innovation, competition and welfare raised, through the span of more than a decade, by the US and EC Microsoft antitrust cases. It assesses their impact on the evolution of European and US laws on competition and intellectual property in the IT sector and beyond.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 5: The Microsoft Case: You Reap what you Sow?

Jens Fejø


Jens Fejø INTRODUCTION 1. When Bill Gates, President of Microsoft, declared to members of Microsoft’s sales force in February 1997: ‘What we are trying to do is use our server control to do new protocols and lock out Sun and Oracle specifically . . . Now, I don’t know if we’ll get to that or not, but that’s what we are trying to do’, he was entering a dangerous area of business. This statement was held against Microsoft by the Commission in its Decision,1 and by the Court of First Instance (CFI) in its later judgment,2 both finding Microsoft to have violated Article 82 of the EC Treaty. How this information was leaked is not completely clear, but it certainly deserves to be highlighted in view of the many arguments Microsoft’s advocates put forward in its defence. These arguments, however, failed to convince the CFI, which confirmed the Commission’s Decision to impose on Microsoft a fine of more than €497,000,000. This followed the CFI’s affirmation of the Commission’s finding that Microsoft abused its dominant position on two counts. First, by illegally refusing to supply to competing producers of non-Windows operating systems for certain servers the protocols necessary to grant interoperability with Windows operating systems for the same servers and client PCs. Secondly, by tying or bundling Windows Media Player (WMP) with Windows operating system. Only the part of the Decision appointing a monitoring trustee was annulled. Before we venture into a more detailed study of the case, there should...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.