The EC punished Microsoft for failing to provide necessary information to rivals and bundling Windows Media Player into Windows. The EC ordered Microsoft to share information with competitors and offer a version of Windows without Media Player. While Microsoft argued this would hamper innovation, the EC aimed to ensure fair competition in Europe.

1. The EC shatters Microsoft’s
Windows

2. SUMMARY
• The EC said that Microsoft failed to provide the information that was needed
by its rivals in the market of computer servers and supply of Windows
without the Window Media Player.
• Political and legal differences are restricting strategic options and growth
oppurtunities. In March2004 the EC ordered Microsoft to open up its
information and technology to its competitors. EC then brought 2 main
charges against Microsoft ie 1)Didn’t share the critical information with Sun
Microsystems, 2) Illegally bundled Windows media player into its Windows
OS. As a punishment Microsoft was imposed a fine for attempting to shut the
competitors.
• The US antitrust regulation focuses on consumer harm by the companies
actions but European antitrust regulators focus on potential harm of the
business competition.

3. • Commissioner Mario’s decision said that competitors are at the unfair
disadvantage by Microsoft’s withholding codes where Windows worked well
with servers hence through EC rulings Microsoft had to share their
information with their competitors within 120 days and also use their rivals
servers products and asked them to keep it current. Within 90 days to
provide a version of Windows without Media players.
• The Commission was seeking to make new laws for IPR and also the
dominant companies will have space to innovate. Microsoft argued that such
rulings will jeopardize the economic incentives for companies and incentives.
• Microsoft also compromised that it would include the rivals programs into
the personal computers but that was rejected. Microsoft even said that the
EC was making the rulings without any evidence that it was causing the
consumer harm. Microsoft asked the Court of First Instance to suspend the
demand of EC so on June27 2004 the EC said that it would not enforce the
deadline for Microsoft for selling their modified version of Windows OS but
would wait until European appeals court decides to suspend the order.

4. • With 10 additional countries in the EU as of 1st May 2004 they decided to
abandon the centralized antitrust enforcement in Brussels.
• EU competition chief Mario Monti wont only be the cause of distress for
Microsoft , these software companies will have to face more of these mini
Marios. This will help the consumers and antitrust lawyers but the companies
in the EU will have to deal with all struggles.

5. 1)
• EC consequences of punishment was- Microsoft was punished in terms of
fine wherein they were penalised so that it would inturn cause deterrent
effect to Microsoft.
• Microsoft had to share it’s information with rivals i.e it would lose its
position, it would lose its ground to dominate the innovation and also use
the rivals products into its computers. Even it was a broad and ill-defined
duty of sharing the important research and development information.
Microsoft was facing various rulings and ahead on time as the business
keeps growing it would have to face many more challenges by higher
officials which would take many years to settle down.
• EC wanted to protect other companies who were actually the competitors
of Microsoft so that only Microsoft would not rule the market.

6. 2)

7. 3)
QUALCOMM WINS FIGHT AGAINST $1 BILLION EU ANTITRUST FINE
• The European General Court ruled against a $1 billion fine imposed by
EU antitrust regulators on Qualcomm.
• EU officials had accused Qualcomm of paying Apple billions to stop it
from using chips made by rivals such as Intel Corp.
• The EU competition enforcer can still appeal on matters of law to the
EU Court of Justice (CJEU), Europe’s highest court.

8. 4)
• The companies who have intended to do business in Europe would
have to built a nationalistic approach and inconsistent application of
regulatory practices.
• They cannot have competitive advantage as they have to share their
information and use the products of the rival companies.
• Due to political and legal differences around the world it can hit the
company and restrict strategic options and growth opportunities.
• It would not allow the firms to create a space for innovation and
product integration and also acquire a market for themselves.

9. 5)
• The companies cannot do business in any way but keeping
globalization as a factor in mind will have to follow their individual
countries rules and laws laid down for the business and also allow
other rival companies to carry onn their business smoothly.
• European antitrust can also come into the picture the business
competition if required.
• Now having Intellectual Property Right Act in place there will be no
threat for the companies as everything will be protected and secured.