Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Microsoft Cancels EU Antitrust Hearing

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 25 comments

Microsoft has withdrawn its request for an oral hearing to respond to antitrust charges from the European Union.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 Todd went on to say that Microsoft has now withdrawn its request for a hearing.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.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    tenor77 , May 22, 2009 5:40 PM
    Quote:
    “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


    Translation- We got a kick ass deal on Trip Advisor and we can't get a refund.
Other Comments
  • 10 Hide
    tenor77 , May 22, 2009 5:40 PM
    Quote:
    “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


    Translation- We got a kick ass deal on Trip Advisor and we can't get a refund.
  • -6 Hide
    falchard , May 22, 2009 6:05 PM
    There is always a solution. Pull windows out of the European Market and give unto them Apple and Linux.
  • Display all 25 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    war2k9 , May 22, 2009 6:15 PM
    falchardThere is always a solution. Pull windows out of the European Market and give unto them Apple and Linux.



    Microsoft wants the world and see how far can they go.
  • 4 Hide
    SAL-e , May 22, 2009 6:23 PM
    falchardThere is always a solution. Pull windows out of the European Market and give unto them Apple and Linux.

    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.
  • 0 Hide
    Parrdacc , May 22, 2009 6:53 PM
    “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."

    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.
  • 4 Hide
    trkorecky , May 22, 2009 6:58 PM
    Or the EU could stop crying about everything and grow the hell up.

    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.
  • 1 Hide
    IzzyCraft , May 22, 2009 7:08 PM
    Apple and linx barely make up 10% of the market whos fault is that i blame apple they been in business longer but they always sold their os as a packaged deal with their machines obv THAT DOESN'T WORK WELL.
  • -1 Hide
    grieve , May 22, 2009 7:48 PM
    trkoreckyCan 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 Hide
    Anonymous , May 22, 2009 7:57 PM
    Ok, let's see what happen if IE doesn't ship with microsoft's os anymore..
    1- install windows..
    2- do updates...
    3- install previously bought software...
    4- download a browser.. huh.. how? no browser access.. DAMN IT
  • -1 Hide
    SirCrono , May 22, 2009 8:07 PM
    grieveThat is a stat i did not know... NICE!I agree trkorecky the EU needs to find someone else to pick on.

    Don't worry, they are unto intel now.
  • -1 Hide
    roofus , May 22, 2009 8:20 PM
    I think it would be looked at different if Microsoft tweaked their operating systems to not work properly with a 3rd party browser or if there was proof that they gave OEM's kickback for not providing alternative browsers in a default configuration.
    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.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , May 22, 2009 8:48 PM
    Why do they need to be in Brussels? There are tonns of courtrooms out there.. It's just pick and choose... I'm sure a room can be found at the cost of pushing a minor criminal back? I mean not that with current socialistic values that would be a problem...
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 22, 2009 9:16 PM
    I'm surprised the EU didn't take up MS on the offer to find a suitable location, I guess for the EU to take MS's money they have to be demanding it themselves instead of MS offering it. I'm surprised they didn't tell MS to go rent out some really fancy resort for a week so they could all get massages in between not paying attention to MS has to say.

    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.
  • 0 Hide
    anamaniac , May 22, 2009 11:08 PM
    They include a browser with their OS...
    Problem is?

    IE works great, and if you want to use something else, you just get something else, that simple.
  • -1 Hide
    ravewulf , May 23, 2009 12:11 AM
    This case should have been rejected to begin with. What do they expect Microsoft to do? Sell Windows without a browser and thus a means to get anything from the internet (other browsers). The whole case is simply rediculous
  • -1 Hide
    rdawise , May 23, 2009 2:02 AM
    This case doesn't make much sense. So they include can't their OWN software in their OS? So when Palm ships with a Palm OS, it's forming a trust? The Iphone has Safari, is this an apple trust? Linux has Firefox, is this a trust?

    If you don't like IE, you can download another browser. The problem for other competing browsers is consumer ignorance, not an MS trust.
  • -1 Hide
    arkhon , May 23, 2009 3:24 PM
    Okay, so what is the problem with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows now? How the hell are users supposed to get onto the internet if no browser comes bundled with their operating system/computer? Last I checked, all browsers are free anyway, so what's the problem? I'm not a Microsoft fanboy; I don't even use Windows on any of my computers; but this argument is ridiculous. If you target Microsoft like this, then you must also target Apple for bundling Safari with Mac OSX, and all the distributors of Linux for even offering a free operating system.
  • 0 Hide
    LockPick , May 23, 2009 5:20 PM
    This is BS.

    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?
  • 3 Hide
    SAL-e , May 23, 2009 7:36 PM
    Ok. From the comments so far I can tell that there are tree main arguments:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    josh jones , May 25, 2009 8:59 PM
    @SAL-e
    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.
Display more comments