Microsoft Cancels EU Antitrust Hearing
Microsoft has withdrawn its request for an oral hearing to respond to antitrust charges from the European Union.
Microsoft’s antitrust troubles kicked off when companies behind competing browsers accused Microsoft of using the fact that the majority of computers ship with Windows to create a nice little browser monopoly for itself with Internet Explorer. The European Union issued a preliminary Statement of Objections in January, claiming the company’s practices "undermine product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice." Microsoft responded to the statement of objections in late April, however details of the company’s response are not known.
A week after Microsoft responded to the EU, European Commission spokesperson Jonathan Todd said that a hearing would commence on June 3 and run through to June 5. "It will be an opportunity for Microsoft to state orally the arguments they outlined in their response to the statement of objections," he said.
CNN Money today reports, citing Todd, that Microsoft recently asked the commission to postpone the aforementioned hearing, but the commission didn't see any reason for that. Todd went on to say that Microsoft has now withdrawn its request for a hearing. Microsoft said in a blog post that the reason for asking for a postponement was because key decision makers would not be present and instead attending an annual antitrust conference in Zurich.
“The dates the Commission selected for our hearing, June 3-5, coincide with the most important worldwide intergovernmental competition law meeting,” wrote Dave Heiner, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Microsoft.
“We pointed out that there’s no legal or other reason that the hearing needs to be held the first week of June. We believe that holding the hearing at a time when key officials are out of the country would deny Microsoft our effective right to be heard and hence deny our 'rights of defense' under European law,” he continued. “Unfortunately, the Commission has informed us that June 3-5 are the only dates that a suitable room is available in Brussels for a hearing. Thus, the Commission has declined to reschedule the hearing despite our offer to find and outfit a suitable room ourselves at another time.”
Microsoft’s blog went on to say that because the EC cannot offer a suitable date, enabling the attendance of key officials the company saw no other solution than to withdraw its request for a hearing.

Translation- We got a kick ass deal on Trip Advisor and we can't get a refund.
Translation- We got a kick ass deal on Trip Advisor and we can't get a refund.
Microsoft wants the world and see how far can they go.
Wow ... That is great idea!
For sure it will hurt many EU countries in short run, but in the long run Microsoft will be out of business.
I don't think MS are stupid to play like spoiled child.
If that's true. Now I to be fair I have never been to Brussels, but are you basically saying that in that entire city they cannot find another suitable room for a hearing? Wow! I do not know what's worse MS or the obviously pathetic see-through excuse the EU gave.
It's not like Apple computers don't ship with Safari, most Linux distros with at least Firefox if not Konqueror or others, and Microsoft doesn't force anyone to use Internet Explorer. Last I checked (April 2009 data, available http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) Internet Explorer has a combined 42.1% usage while Firefox has 47.1%. Can someone check my math, or is 42.1% actually larger than 47.1%?
EU, shut the hell up. You're just showing ignorance.
That is a stat i did not know... NICE!
I agree trkorecky the EU needs to find someone else to pick on.
1- install windows..
2- do updates...
3- install previously bought software...
4- download a browser.. huh.. how? no browser access.. DAMN IT
Don't worry, they are unto intel now.
Complete waste of time and resources. For all the things that could possibly be easy targets of anti-competitive behavior, this has to be among the weakest. The EU does a great job of demonizing themselves pursuing this tripe.
As for the whole browser subject for starters browsers are free and have been for a very long time. It might have been wrong what MS did to netscape many years ago but they were punished for it long before the EU came into existence. It's a load of crap that the EU thinks it MS's responsibility to make sure other peoples software works with their operating system.
Problem is?
IE works great, and if you want to use something else, you just get something else, that simple.
If you don't like IE, you can download another browser. The problem for other competing browsers is consumer ignorance, not an MS trust.
EU keeps sueing companies for bad reasons, well lets see, without IE, how could the average user get Firefox or Opera?
A CD?
Basically EU is trying to get the most money they can out of companies.
IE costs nothing, so how is it a monopoly?
1. MS is not responsible because other OS-es have done the same.
2. IE is free so there is no consumer losses caused by MS actions
3. There is no way to get other browsers installed if IE is not bundled.
Let me address each one by one.
1. Because of very active marketing most people are confusing the meaning of the world “bundle”. If you have two products A and B that have different function and can work independently from each other are bundled when the company takes a steps to restrict independent use by:
a) Market restriction – You can not buy product A without buying product B. In case of Windows you can not get IE without Windows and you can not get Windows without IE. Linux distributions are coming with pre-installed browser, but you can remove it and use other browser so there is no bundling here.
b) Technical restriction – You modify the product A to check if the product B is available and prevent to use product A. Windows will break if I remove the IE. Ubuntu will not break if I uninstall Firefox.
So MS is engaged in bundling practices and Linux distributors are not. I can not comment in case of OS X because I don’t have experience with it. The bundling practices are gray area when it comes to free market. That is why I believe in general that government should stay away, but we should educate every one that bundles are bad for consumer and a way to maximize profit for the company. There are only very small percent of cases where bundling is good for individual consumer. I can come only with one example: You go to the grocery store and buy milk plus apples and negotiate a deal with store manager to give you 5% discount. In other words the consumer is making the bundle not the vendor. The rule is who make a bundle is the one to rip the profit of it.
2. Is IE really free? As many can say there is no free lunch. The question is how we pay for it. I will start with Firefox. Firefox is making money by sharing adv revenue with search web sites. Every time you do search from Firefox Mozilla is receiving small payment. The case with IE is more complicated because in addition for the adv revenue there is second much more lucrative income for MS. IE is part of Windows platform. As long MS keeps you locked in into Windows they can charge what ever price for Windows. This is especially critical for MS when they have enjoyed monopoly for very long time and now they have new competition in the form of on-line services. The only way for MS to control those on-line services is by controlling the browser. That is why MS is making the browser incompatible with many standards and provide complimentary products to those standards that are proprietary and available only on Windows platform. None of other browsers are engaged in similar behavior. At the end every consumer that has bought computer has been ripped off by paying monopolistic price because MS is forcing OEM-es to sell computers with Windows pre-installed. This is especially true for small OEM-es that have no power to negotiate exceptions to their contracts with MS.
3. You can not get the other browser without IE? That is the weakest argument at all. The network file exchange was invented long time before the browsers was invented. In fact the downloading files over http is probably the most inefficient way to do this. Even MS is not using http to deliver the patches. Yes you go to web site to see what patches are available, but once you select which patches you need the windows is launching other process to download the patches and it is not using standard http to do this. If there is will there is away.
I believe the other vendors’ complains are legitimate and EU has real case because:
1. MS is bundling the IE which is very different from pre-installing it.
2. MS is making the browser incompatible forcing all websites to spend extra money to make their web sites compatible with IE and some time it is impossible unless you pay for MS products. In many cases because financial reasons some websites can not make two versions of their web sites and makes those sites unusable with other browsers. This is the main problem here I believe.
In relation to the news that EU commission has re-fused to accommodate MS needs, well Steve Ballmer is to blame here. He was the one to go to the media and start making assaulting comments to the EU commission after they fined MS for refusing to comply with their orders. He might not like EU commission, but they are the Power in EU and if he wants to rip benefits from EU market he better respect that power. I think this is just pay back and political demonstration about who has the power. Sorry, but Microsoft should be more politically smart next time. The politics is dirty game.
I think EU should be very careful about their decision here. If they only fine MS they will send wrong message that you can violate EU laws and then pay fine, which is only passed to consumers. They have to make sure that MS comply with EU laws. The last time MS only remove the icon and laughed.
you seem to know about this case. why is that?
did you forget that Firefox has majority market share.
EU seems to bully these companies for financial gain. as far as i'm concerned, the EU is nothing more than a parasite, (tape worm, leech, etc)..
nice to know the EU has ways to offset costs, but it's too bad it's at the expense of others.