*Source: NY Times By Kevin J O'Brien
(NSI News Source Info) BERLIN - June 13, 2009: European regulators, wary of repeating an earlier mistake, signaled this week that Microsoft’s offer to sell a browserle
ss Windows system on the Continent did not go far enough.
The decision has left some antitrust lawyers in Brussels scratching their heads.
“Microsoft is offering to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser — you would think this is what the commission wants,” said Alec Burnside, a competition lawyer at Linklaters in Brussels. “You would expect them to say ‘Thank you’ and close the case.”
Microsoft made an offer Thursday to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser, the latest move in a case that was initiated in December 2007 based on a complaint by Opera, a Norwegian browser maker.
But the commission, in a statement, dismissed the offer, saying the move would not further its goal of promoting browsers that compete with Internet Explorer.
Instead, Microsoft and European authorities appear on course for another legal collision over the software maker’s bundling of major applications into Windows, which, according to the research firm Gartner, runs more than 95 percent of computers in the world.
One reason for the quick rejection, according to competition lawyers in Brussels and a commission spokesman, is that the European Commission did not want to repeat a mistake of the first Microsoft case, when it ordered the software maker in 2004 to sell a version of Windows in Europe without its media player.
Microsoft responded by selling its so-called N version of Windows for the same price as its full version, and consumers rejected the stripped-down system. The remedy also did not significantly improve the lot of competing media players. Microsoft said it sold only a few thousand copies of the N version.
This time, the commission has indicated it may want Microsoft to distribute Windows with competing Web browsers preinstalled and then allow retailers and computer makers to decide from a “ballot screen” menu which browsers to install. About 95 percent of computer operating systems are sold preinstalled on new computers.
“Our focus in this case is that consumers should effectively have the chance to choose from an array of browsers,” a commission spokesman, Jonathan Todd, said. “The remedy with the ‘N’ version software didn’t work.”
In hindsight, Mr. Todd said the commission should have required Microsoft to sell only a Windows version in Europe without a media player and not allowed the parallel sale of the full version.
In Europe, Microsoft is offering to sell a browserless “E” version of Windows 7, its latest operating system version, which is scheduled to be introduced worldwide Oct. 22. “This means that computer manufacturers and users will be free to install Internet Explorer on Windows 7, or not, as they prefer,” wrote Dave Heiner, the Microsoft deputy general counsel who disclosed the offer, in the company’s blog.
Denis Walbroeck, a competition lawyer at Ashurst in Brussels, said the commission’s rejection indicated it was not looking to settle quickly with Microsoft.
“I am struggling to understand the commission’s behavior here,” Mr. Walbroeck said. “It appears this is headed to a big decision from the commission, a big fine and perhaps a lengthy appeal.”
Since the complaint was initially filed, many of Microsoft’s biggest commercial rivals — Sun Microsystems, Google, Nokia and others — have signed on to the case as legal adversaries.
Microsoft canceled the only hearing scheduled in the case, scheduled for early June, after complaining that many European antitrust officials who could attend the hearing as observers were unable to do so because of a competing conference in Switzerland.
The commission is under no timetable to release its ruling in the browser case, but in the past, it has publicized crucial decisions, fines and sanctions before leaving for its summer break in late July.
ss Windows system on the Continent did not go far enough.
The decision has left some antitrust lawyers in Brussels scratching their heads.
“Microsoft is offering to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser — you would think this is what the commission wants,” said Alec Burnside, a competition lawyer at Linklaters in Brussels. “You would expect them to say ‘Thank you’ and close the case.”
Microsoft made an offer Thursday to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser, the latest move in a case that was initiated in December 2007 based on a complaint by Opera, a Norwegian browser maker.
But the commission, in a statement, dismissed the offer, saying the move would not further its goal of promoting browsers that compete with Internet Explorer.
Instead, Microsoft and European authorities appear on course for another legal collision over the software maker’s bundling of major applications into Windows, which, according to the research firm Gartner, runs more than 95 percent of computers in the world.
One reason for the quick rejection, according to competition lawyers in Brussels and a commission spokesman, is that the European Commission did not want to repeat a mistake of the first Microsoft case, when it ordered the software maker in 2004 to sell a version of Windows in Europe without its media player.
Microsoft responded by selling its so-called N version of Windows for the same price as its full version, and consumers rejected the stripped-down system. The remedy also did not significantly improve the lot of competing media players. Microsoft said it sold only a few thousand copies of the N version.
This time, the commission has indicated it may want Microsoft to distribute Windows with competing Web browsers preinstalled and then allow retailers and computer makers to decide from a “ballot screen” menu which browsers to install. About 95 percent of computer operating systems are sold preinstalled on new computers.
“Our focus in this case is that consumers should effectively have the chance to choose from an array of browsers,” a commission spokesman, Jonathan Todd, said. “The remedy with the ‘N’ version software didn’t work.”
In hindsight, Mr. Todd said the commission should have required Microsoft to sell only a Windows version in Europe without a media player and not allowed the parallel sale of the full version.
In Europe, Microsoft is offering to sell a browserless “E” version of Windows 7, its latest operating system version, which is scheduled to be introduced worldwide Oct. 22. “This means that computer manufacturers and users will be free to install Internet Explorer on Windows 7, or not, as they prefer,” wrote Dave Heiner, the Microsoft deputy general counsel who disclosed the offer, in the company’s blog.
Denis Walbroeck, a competition lawyer at Ashurst in Brussels, said the commission’s rejection indicated it was not looking to settle quickly with Microsoft.
“I am struggling to understand the commission’s behavior here,” Mr. Walbroeck said. “It appears this is headed to a big decision from the commission, a big fine and perhaps a lengthy appeal.”
Since the complaint was initially filed, many of Microsoft’s biggest commercial rivals — Sun Microsystems, Google, Nokia and others — have signed on to the case as legal adversaries.
Microsoft canceled the only hearing scheduled in the case, scheduled for early June, after complaining that many European antitrust officials who could attend the hearing as observers were unable to do so because of a competing conference in Switzerland.
The commission is under no timetable to release its ruling in the browser case, but in the past, it has publicized crucial decisions, fines and sanctions before leaving for its summer break in late July.
No comments:
Post a Comment