法院判決微軟支付80%由歐盟所付的法律支出，而歐盟則要支付個別由微軟所付出的費用。
歐盟委員會在2004年裁決微軟必須將視窗操作系統的資料提供給競爭對手。隨後微軟和歐盟便在此一反壟斷裁決上糾纏不休。
歐盟以微軟未能遵從一項反壟斷裁決，處罰微軟4.97億歐元的罰款。
根據2004年的裁決，微軟必須提供競爭對手視窗操作平台的技術資料，以便競爭對手們編寫的軟件可以在視窗系統穩定的運轉。
在2006年，由於微軟一直拒羯接受裁決，歐盟要求微軟交出共2.805億歐元罰款。
歐盟的裁決還要求微軟將視窗和WINDOW MEDIA PLAYER 分開，並且就此一項目處罰微軟近5億歐元的罰款。
【蔡文英╱綜合外電報導】全球最大軟體製造商微軟和歐盟執行委員會之間數 年來的反托辣斯纏訟，昨天出現令人驚訝的判決。歐盟高等法院「初審法院」駁回微軟的上訴，支持歐盟執委會2004年認定微軟視窗作業系統壟斷市場的裁決， 微軟須支付歐盟有史以來最高額罰款4億9700萬歐元（約229億元台幣），並得替歐盟支付八成訴訟費。微軟還沒決定是否上訴。
須分享視窗系統通訊碼
歐盟執委會經五年調查，於2004年下令微軟必須跟對手分享視窗系統的通訊碼，同時視窗產品不得附有影音播放軟體Media Player，微軟不服、提出上訴。
位於盧森堡的歐盟初審法院(Court of First Instance)13名法官昨天裁定，微軟確實利用它在個人電腦作業系統九成五佔有率，在軟體研發等相關市場上打擊對手競爭力。而微軟將新應用軟體跟視 窗作業系統綁在一起販售的做法不正當，損害消費者的選擇。這項判決有可能迫使微軟改變營運方式。
微 軟的對手對此判決都表歡迎。微軟則表示，在看過248頁判決書前不會發表評論，也不會宣布是否上訴歐盟最高法院「歐洲法院」（European Court of Justice）。微軟律師史密斯在法院外表示：「我們期盼遵守今天的決定。」後來他又稱，微軟「必須採取額外措施」去遵守歐盟要它與對手分享通訊碼的要 求。
1988/12 昇陽電腦向歐盟申訴，指微軟拒提供其伺服器軟體與視窗系統通訊所需互通性資訊。歐盟開始調查微軟是否壟斷市場。
2004/03 歐盟執委會裁定微軟違法，罰4億9700萬歐元（約229億元台幣），須在120天內與對手分享通訊碼、90天內推出無影音播放軟體Media Player的視窗軟體。制裁因微軟上訴暫緩施行。
2006/02 微軟數家對手再向歐盟申訴，指微軟Office軟體壟斷市場。
2006/07 歐盟裁定微軟未遵守2004年裁決，再罰約129億元台幣。微軟上訴。
2007/09 歐盟初審法院駁回微軟對2004年歐盟裁決的上訴，維持巨額罰金並要微軟支付歐盟大多數法律費用。
資料來源：美聯社
TOP STORY
EU Court Rejects
Microsoft Appeal
BRUSSELS -- One of Europe's highest courts handed Microsoft Corp. a stinging defeat in its hard-fought antitrust case, dismissing nearly all of the company's appeal of a landmark 2004 decision by the European Union and upholding €497 million in fines.
The ruling by the European Court of First Instance endorsed in broad strokes the EU's power to regulate dominant companies abusing their market position.
Microsoft is likely to appeal the ruling to Europe's highest tribunal, the European Court of Justice.
The latest ruling arms European antitrust authorities with strong tools to pursue Microsoft further, if it chooses to, as well as other dominant, high-tech players. The court, which sits in Luxembourg, brushed aside Microsoft's arguments that its intellectual property should provide protection from regulation and that high-tech industries, by their fast-moving nature, should be treated with a different hand.
The court's ruling also moves Europe's antitrust jurisprudence further away from that of the U.S., where regulators are less apt to view aggressive conduct by dominant companies as abusive.
In Europe, abuse-of-dominance is forbidden by a section of the European treaty known as Article 82. But courts have had relatively few opportunities to outline Article 82's scope.
The Microsoft case represented a choice opportunity -- and the court took it, saying the EU's executive arm, the European Commission, had proceeded appropriately in drawing broad powers from Article 82 to move against the software giant.
The Microsoft case had two key components. The first was whether the Redmond, Wash. software giant abused its dominant position by bundling the Windows Media Player inside its Windows operating system. The EU argued the bundling was illegal under European antitrust law since it disadvantaged others who produced -- or might want to try -- a separate media player. RealNetworks Inc., the maker of an alternative player, joined that case but settled with Microsoft in 2005 for $761 million.
The bundling allegations resemble the crux of the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft, which was built around how the bundled Web browser was used against rival Netscape.
The case's other main component concerned protocols that allow other manufacturers' servers to communicate with Microsoft machines in a type of network known as a workgroup. These servers are commonly used for tasks such as maintaining a directory of users and controlling their access to the network, storing shared files and queuing documents for printers.
In 1998, Sun Microsystems Inc. complained to the EU that Microsoft had refused to share "interoperability" information it needed to let servers running its operating system work with Microsoft-based computers.
That complaint touched off the EU's investigation; six years later, it handed down its decision.
That landmark decision, more than 300 pages in length and the culmination of a six-year probe by EU officials, prescribed a harsh fine -- €497 million -- and ordered Microsoft to remove its media player from the Windows operating system and share communications protocols with rivals who wanted their machines to work with Windows computers.
The decision reflected years of frustration on both sides. Microsoft mounted a massive public-relations and legal campaign in Brussels; the EU pushed back. Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer flew to Brussels for settlement talks, but hopes of a settlement evaporated. Former Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said he wanted a clear decision from the EU to set a precedent in dealing with dominant high-tech firms.
Monday, the Court of First Instance upheld both the removal of media player and the requirement to disclose the protocols. It also left the €497 million fine in place. That suggests that further fines -- €281 million in 2006 for Microsoft's refusal to comply with the decision and a running levy of €3 million per day since August 2006 for excessive pricing -- will also remain in place, though they weren't the subject of Monday's litigation.
The court did reject a minor part of the EU's case, saying the antitrust regulator exceeded its authority when it created an outside trustee to monitor Microsoft. The court also said Microsoft didn't have to pay for the trustee.
沒有留言:
張貼留言