The software giant has also asked for the remedies, including disclosing interface documentation to enable non-Windows servers to interoperate with Windows-based PCs, as well as offering PC manufacturers a version of the Windows operating system without Windows Media, to be suspended until after the appeal has been completed.
Court president Bo Vesterdorf is expected to respond within days to the request for a suspension of the remedies, while the appeal itself could last years. Microsoft’s senior vice president and general counsel, Brad Smith, claimed in March that the failure of Microsoft and the EC to reach a compromise could have delayed the impact of remedies by four or five years.
Microsoft believes the EC went too far in its ruling, which will effectively force two versions of Windows in Europe, one with Windows Media and one without. Announcing the ruling in March, EC competition commissioner Mario Monti said this would open opportunities to media player rivals and increase consumer choice, something Microsoft believes would have been better served by its settlement proposal to allow PC manufacturers to load three media players on Windows-based PCs.
Both sides are now confident of prevailing in the European Court of First Instance, indicating that the legal process could roll on for several more years. Microsoft maintains that the EC remedies infringe the company’s intellectual property rights, while Monti is confident his ruling will stand up in court. Court case law has been the main criteria. We have been extremely careful about the quality of the decision making process, he said in March.
It remains to be seen what impact Microsoft’s $1.6bn antitrust settlement and cross-licensing deal with Sun Microsystems Inc will have on the appeal. Sun had been one of the driving forces behind the EC investigation, but just days after the EC’s ruling, it had settled its difference with Microsoft via a technology licensing framework, interoperability of software, and product certification between the two companies.
It has been suggested that the settlement, and Sun’s opinion that the objectives it was pursuing in the EU actions are satisfied could blow a hole in the EC’s case, although on the other hand the EC maintains that its decision is not about just one company, and it could also be argued that the size and scope of settlement with Sun proves there were significant interoperability concerns that could still affect other competitors and consumers.
