Applications to intervene by the International Intellectual Property Institute, the Institute for Policy Innovation, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation were rejected on the grounds that they are in reality mere ‘think tanks’, according to the order signed by the Court of First Instance’s president Bo Vesterdorf.

Vesterdorf also rejected the application lodged by the International Association of Microsoft Certified Partners on the grounds that its objects do not include the protection of its members’ interests of the representation of its members.

In reality, its essential objective is to promote among its members, an exchange of information and discussion on trade and technical issues of interest to the and also partnering, the order added.

While the IIPI, IPI, and PFF are involved with the promotion of intellectual property rights, Judge Vesterdorf dismissed their claims to an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of case law.

It is difficult to understand in what way the solution which the court will arrive at in the case is capable of affecting, in any way whatsoever, the legal position of IIPI, IPI and PFF, wrote Vesterdorf. The interest which IIPI, IPI and PFF claim is in fact merely an indirect, and purely abstract and academic interest.

While Microsoft has lost some backing in its appeal against the European Commission’s record 497.2m euro ($613m) fine and other remedies imposed after it was found guilty of breaking European Union competition law, it does not want for supporters.

The Association for Competitive Technology and The Computing Technology Industry Association are also listed as Microsoft supporters on the order, as well as vendors including DMDsecure.com BV, MPS Broadband AB, Pace Micro Technology Plc, Quantel Ltd, Tandberg Television Ltd, Exor AB, Mamut ASA, and TeamSystem SpA.

The European Commission’s supporters are listed as the Software & Information Industry Association, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, the Free Software Foundation Europe, Audiobanner.com, and RealNetworks Inc. The latter is listed despite its October settlement with Microsoft.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has begun the process of overhauling the way in which it deals with the abuse of dominant market positions. The Competition Commission has published a Staff Discussion Paper designed to promote debate on dealing with antitrust issues.

The paper describes a general framework for analyzing abusive exclusionary conduct by a dominant company and puts the emphasis on the market and economic effects of company dominance.

Dominant companies should be allowed to compete effectively. Putting this policy objective into a consistent legal and economic framework is an ambitious project, but it is worthwhile for the clarity it will give to companies and their advisers, said competition commissioner Neelie Kroes of the overhaul. This discussion paper is the first step, and I want a wide discussion before taking a firm view on the proposals in the paper and before deciding how best to apply the results of these discussions.

The Commission will accept comments until March 31, 2006, and will hold a public hearing next spring.