On September 17, 2007, the European Court of First Instance ruled that the decision of the European Commission on anti-monopoly punishment against Microsoft in the United States in 2004 was upheld, including a huge fine of 497 million euros for the world's largest software manufacturer. This penalty decision of the European Union is the first time that Microsoft has lost the case on the monopoly issue in recent years, and it is also the first time that Microsoft's monopoly behavior has been affirmed.
Anti-monopoly contest between EU and Microsoft in recent ten years
In the fiscal year ending June 30th this year, Microsoft's profits in EU countries exceeded 654.38+000 billion euros. In other words, this fine is only equivalent to the profits Microsoft earned in EU countries within two weeks. Although the fine is far less than Microsoft's bundled sales profit, it is only "losing the body of a cow" for Microsoft with deep pockets, but its impact is far-reaching, at least legally proving that Microsoft monopolized the EU market with its strong advantages and did a lot of unfair competition.
The dispute about Microsoft monopolizing the software market has a long history. The reason why Microsoft gained absolute market advantage is that it constantly defeated its rivals on the same issue in China and settled with the court. 1In June, 990, the US Federal Trade Commission investigated the possible conflict between Microsoft and IBM in the PC software market. 1993, the U.S. Department of Justice received complaints from other software vendors and began to investigate Microsoft's market monopoly behavior, focusing on the market strategy of Microsoft DOS. 1994, Microsoft agreed to modify the software use contract with PC manufacturers to allow other software manufacturers to compete with them, thus ending the year-long investigation. 1997, the US Department of Justice sued Microsoft again, claiming that it violated the agreement signed by 1994 and used unfair competition to force computer manufacturers to sell their browser software. At that time, Microsoft bundled the browser software with the Windows operating system software that dominated the market. 1997, U.S. District Judge Thomas. Jackson issued a restraining order requiring Microsoft to install InternetExplorer4.0 browser software produced by other software vendors when installing Windows 95 operating system, forcing Microsoft to temporarily stop bundling sales. From 65438 to 0998, the U.S. Department of Justice and the attorneys general of 20 states collectively sued Microsoft, claiming that Microsoft illegally prevented other software vendors from competing with it in order to maintain its software monopoly position. 1999, Microsoft released an improved version of Windows software, and its market share of Windows media player increased significantly. Microsoft's bundled sales model makes the growth rate of its media player greatly exceed that of competitors such as Real Networks. In 2000, Judge Jackson made a decision to split Microsoft in two, and Microsoft subsequently appealed. 200 1, Microsoft was accused of violating the anti-monopoly law and entered the court debate stage of the appeal procedure.
When Microsoft fought a monopoly war in China, it also had a dispute with the EU antitrust agency. The European Court of Justice thought it was easy to persuade Microsoft, but it didn't realize that while Microsoft defeated many rivals at home, it continued to use its original strategy in the United States to exert its arrogance in the European market, resulting in a decline in sales of software manufacturers within the European Union. After discovering that Microsoft's market behavior did not conform to the EU's market code of conduct, the EU issued a warning and said that it would impose a huge fine on the company unless Microsoft took measures to make the EU no longer worry about market competition. But it's no use.
The European Union sued Microsoft from 1998. At that time, the anti-monopoly agency in Brussels began to investigate Microsoft's behavior in Europe at the request of Sun Systems. Subsequently, they found that Microsoft monopolized the whole European server market by taking advantage of the market of desktop terminals. The European Union once again warned Microsoft, but Microsoft still turned a deaf ear and continued to sell Windows bundled media player software in Europe.
In 2003, with the acquiescence of the US government, Microsoft reached a settlement agreement with 18 states in China. Microsoft further urged the court not to consider the proposal to sanction Microsoft. The acquiescence of American courts has fueled Microsoft's momentum. In fact, this means strengthening Microsoft's monopoly position in the domestic market and naturally opening the door for it to enter the European server market.
The anti-monopoly attitude of the EU is stronger than that of the United States.
However, at this time, the anti-monopoly dispute between Microsoft and the European Union began to intensify. The reason for the intensification of contradictions is that Microsoft has been very tough from beginning to end while abusing its dominant position in the computer operating system market. As early as June 5438+ 10, 2003, Mario, a member of the EU Market Competition Committee. Monty plans to hold a hearing to discuss a draft resolution and prepare to take tough measures against Microsoft.
Continued investigations have exposed more market manipulation by Microsoft. For example, Microsoft's Net Passport is suspected of violating the EU's regulations on personal privacy, and the EU immediately asked Microsoft to amend it. However, at a hearing, the European Court of First Instance had a heated debate with Microsoft, and the two sides fought fiercely. Michael, a lawyer who sued Microsoft on behalf of the class action plaintiff. Hausfield initially accused Microsoft of dismissing the monopoly charges it faced. Hausfield opened a video in which Microsoft CEO Steve. When balmer was asked if he fully understood the word "monopoly", the lawyer said, "balmer smiled and said,' Of course I know what monopoly is. I often play this game with my children. "It can be seen from this sentence that although the EU has filed many anti-monopoly lawsuits against Microsoft before, there are no substantive results. The reason is that Microsoft executives completely ignore the EU's monopoly allegations. "
Since the beginning of 2004, the dispute between the EU and Microsoft about the antitrust case has gradually heated up, and the EU imposed a huge fine on Microsoft. In June of the same year, Microsoft filed a complaint with the European Court of First Instance, demanding that the penalty decision be overturned. Microsoft also asked the court to order that the EU's decision be suspended until the court makes a judgment. In February 65438, the court of first instance rejected Microsoft's request to overturn the EU decision.
Most public opinion in Europe believes that the problems faced by Microsoft in Europe are far more than these. In February, 2006, the European Union launched an investigation into the compatibility of Microsoft systems. Originally, many American companies, including IBM and Oracle Bone Inscriptions, published data, but Microsoft used its system advantages to crush European rivals. Moreover, competitors in the European Union constantly complain to Microsoft that Microsoft has not changed its original strategic decision because of EU sanctions, and continues to refuse to provide formatted information, resulting in its local products still not being compatible with Microsoft's Windows version, which has almost become Microsoft's consistent practice in dealing with competitors in the EU market. How can the European Commission turn a blind eye? In July of the same year, the EU decided to fine Microsoft 280 million euros again. In June 5438+10 of the same year, Microsoft appealed the new punishment decision of the EU. In March 2007, the European Union threatened to impose another fine of 3 million euros per day on Microsoft and demanded a reply from Microsoft. Until September 17, the court of first instance made a preliminary judgment on Microsoft's appeal to overturn the EU's anti-monopoly punishment decision.
This punishment decision is inevitable. But there is a deeper reason why Microsoft doesn't listen to the EU, because it is backed by a powerful American government. The anti-monopoly investigation initiated by the European Union against American companies such as Microsoft even aroused the dissatisfaction of the American government. Information technology giants, including Intel and Apple, are worried about the EU investigation, and they are also facing the EU antitrust investigation. At the beginning of this year, the European Commission sent questionnaires to Microsoft's competitors in the EU twice to collect whether it is necessary to further explore the compatibility of foreign software. The reason why the EU did not investigate Intel further is that the antitrust case with Microsoft has not yet been settled.
For consumers, choosing which software to install is a laborious task, but for the multimedia player market, this lawsuit is of great significance. After the EU ruling comes into effect, it will have a far-reaching impact on the sales of Microsoft products in the European market. According to the data, the sales of Microsoft Windows operating system in Western Europe in 2002 was $3.4 billion, accounting for 30% of the company's global sales. Since then, its sales volume has increased year by year, because Windows can be embedded in other operating systems in recent years, and its market has shown an infinite expansion trend. Another survey shows that in the past ten years, the market of software companies in the European Union has been very weak, and the prices have been falling, while the prices of Microsoft's operating systems and applications have been rising.
Since then, the war of words between the European Court of Justice and Microsoft has intensified, and the attitude of the European Union has become increasingly tough. The court of first instance appealed to the Supreme Court. Judging from previous lawsuits, complicated lawsuits like this often last for a year or even longer. Even if the European Union decides that Microsoft's monopolistic behavior is established, Microsoft still refuses to accept it. Since then, the European Court of First Instance has continued its investigation.
The court traced back to the decision to investigate Microsoft's violation of anti-monopoly law, requiring Microsoft to disclose all source code, including all music and video software source code of Windows version. Unexpectedly, after Microsoft reached a settlement with the US Supreme Court, Microsoft claimed that in the process of tracking Microsoft, 95% of the world's personal computers' Microsoft technical secrets were exposed, which would endanger Microsoft's global market position and was illegal. In this regard, the court immediately refuted that Microsoft's market value is nearly 300 billion US dollars, and it is also one of the best companies in the world. Coupled with the monopoly position of the market, not to mention ordinary customers and enterprises, even some small countries are unable to compete with Microsoft, and its market value is even equivalent to the total GDP of many developing countries. Faced with such a behemoth, any attempt to break Microsoft's monopoly position by market means alone is unthinkable. Therefore, if there is no determination to maintain the EU market order, it will eventually hurt many local EU enterprises; If we continue to tolerate this monopolistic behavior, the EU's economy will be even worse.
Sanctions against monopoly and strict market discipline are essential.
The European Court of Justice realized that if we continue to tolerate Microsoft, the living space of most European software manufacturers will be blocked, the normal competition order in the EU market will be destroyed, and consumers' right to choose will be deprived. How can an American company like the European Union stand by and watch Microsoft steal most of the local software market? Nellie, President of the EU Competition Commission. Cross believes that "a series of actions by Microsoft have deeply infringed on the interests of European consumers and competitors, and caused the European Union's local software to fall into an unprecedented depression." Philip, an expert at the British Institute of International and Competition Law. Muldoon also believes that the software markets in Europe and the United States are both part of the international market, but the damage brought by Microsoft to the European market is more extensive and far-reaching than the American market.
Faced with accusations from many EU officials, Brad, Microsoft's chief legal adviser. Smith adopted the strategy of delaying the troops' advance. He told reporters, "Our company will further study it carefully before making a decision. If we need to take further measures to meet the anti-monopoly needs of EU countries, then Microsoft will not hesitate. " Then he changed the subject and said, "In fact, the impact and time of Microsoft infringement on the market remains to be further investigated. The EU's decision may be inappropriate, because Microsoft does not need to provide network protocols for servers produced by competitors, and the EU does not need to force Microsoft to meet the product design of competitors. "
The court of first instance has repeatedly stressed that there is no doubt about the investigation evidence of Microsoft's violation of the EU anti-monopoly law, and the 248-page investigation report has explained everything. Immediately, Cross stressed in Brussels that the judgment of the court of first instance on Microsoft was correct, safe and appropriate. If the verdict is established, Microsoft's market share in the EU will also change, and Microsoft's share should be at least less than 95%. If so, it can be proved that the judgment of the court of first instance in this antitrust case is successful, and EU countries also hope to see this.
Cross believes that the judgments made by the court of first instance in the past are actually measures taken to prevent Microsoft from undermining the normal market competition order in the European Union. The decision made by the court again is of great significance, because so many people are using computers, and they are all influenced by computers. But the victims are more all countries within the EU.
Cross also stressed that if Microsoft still refuses to obey this judgment, then the EU will re-evaluate and revise this decision and take tougher measures to meet the needs of future market antitrust cases. The reason for reassessing the revision is, "We have never encountered such a monopoly case."
In addition, the court also rejected Microsoft's defense of its right to keep data confidential on the grounds that it involved patents, copyrights and trade secrets. But the judge stressed that there is no real innovation in Microsoft's new products, so why do these rights exist? Nicholas, Professor of Law, new york University. Ikonomiz said, "This is a huge loss for Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft's expansion may face a turning point. The main reason is that it can no longer be as overbearing in Europe as it is in American territory. "
Thomas, spokesman of the EU Press Office. Wen Jie said in Brussels, "Now, the EU's decision to punish Microsoft has laid the principle of market behavior, that is, adhering to the principle that software products should be more compatible in a wide range of market fields." The huge fine imposed by the European Union on Microsoft can be called "the most important decision in the history of the European Union". European antitrust officials once again warned multinational giants including Microsoft: No matter who you are, as long as you come to Europe, you will be punished if you don't obey the rules.
Microsoft may be studying countermeasures behind closed doors. Smith, its chief legal adviser, said, "It has not been decided whether to take further measures." However, relevant analysts said that although the fine is small, it has a far-reaching impact, and Microsoft's product design and market decision may be reversed. In addition to not "illegally binding" the player Media Player with the Windows operating software, Microsoft has to authorize its rivals to explain in detail how its various software can run smoothly under the Windows system, just like IBM, Oracle Bone Inscriptions, Nokia and other companies.
The EU's decision is a radical move for Microsoft, and the legal basis behind it will have a far-reaching impact on Microsoft's future business strategy. It is not too much to say that the EU's judgment "determines the future". How to formulate the anti-monopoly policy of the world science and technology industry in the future may be a typical case. Intel, Google, Apple and other technology giants will also become history under the banner of "patent" and unscrupulously devour other regional markets.