Orders nº T-201/04 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, April 28, 2005

Resolution DateApril 28, 2005
Issuing OrganizationCourt of First Instance of the European Communities
Decision NumberT-201/04

(Intervention – Representative association – Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance – Application to participate in the written procedure – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Exceptional circumstances)

In Case T-201/04,

Microsoft Corp., established in Redmond, Washington (United States), represented by J.‑F. Bellis, lawyer, and I. Forrester QC,

applicant,

supported by

Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., established in Washington, DC (United States), represented by L. Ruessmann, lawyer,

DMDsecure.com BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), MPS Broadband AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), Pace Micro Technology plc, established in Shipley, West Yorkshire (United Kingdom), Quantel Ltd, established in Newbury, Berkshire (United Kingdom), Tandberg Television Ltd, established in Southampton, Hampshire (United Kingdom), represented by J. Bourgeois, lawyer,

Exor AB, established in Uppsala (Sweden), represented by S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann and R. Allendesalazar Corcho, lawyers,

Mamut ASA, established in Oslo (Norway), and TeamSystem SpA, established in Pesaro (Italy), represented by G. Berrisch, lawyer,

The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc., established in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois (United States), represented by G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, and B. Kilpatrick, Solicitor,

interveners,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright, F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and A. Whelan, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

AudioBanner.com, trading as VideoBanner, established in Los Angeles, California (United States), represented by L. Alvizar, lawyer,

Free Software Foundation Europe eV, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by C. Piana, lawyer,

RealNetworks, Inc., established in Seattle, Washington (United States), represented by A. Winckler, M. Dolmans and T. Graf, lawyers,

Software & Information Industry Association, established in Washington, DC (United States), represented by C. Simpson, Solicitor,

interveners,

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 900 final of 24 March 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C‑3/37.792 – Microsoft), or for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

makes the following

Order

Background

1 Microsoft Corp. (‘Microsoft’) develops and markets computer software, including operating systems for client personal computers (‘PCs’), known as Windows, work group server operating systems, known as Windows Server, and streaming media players, known as Windows Media Player.

2 On 10 December 1998, Sun Microsystems, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States), lodged a complaint with the Commission. That complaint related to Microsoft’s refusal to supply Sun Microsystems, Inc. with the information necessary to allow interoperability of its work group server operating systems with Windows. The Commission opened an investigation into the matter.

3 In February 2000 the Commission opened a second investigation into Microsoft. The object of that investigation was the integration of Windows Media Player in Windows.

4 The two investigations were subsequently joined under Case No COMP/C‑3/37.792.

5 On 24 March 2004, the Commission adopted Decision C(2004) 900 final relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC in Case COMP/C-3.37.792 – Microsoft (‘the Decision’).

6 In assessing Microsoft’s conduct, the Commission, first, defined three relevant markets. Those markets were the client PC operating system market (recitals 324 to 342 to the Decision), the work group server operating system market (recitals 343 to 401 to the Decision) and the streaming media player market (recitals 402 to 425 to the Decision).

7 Second, the Commission found that each of those markets was worldwide (recital 427 to the Decision).

8 Third, the Commission found that Microsoft held a dominant position on two of those markets, namely the client PC operating system market (recitals 429 to 472 to the Decision) and the work group server operating system market (recitals 473 to 541 to the Decision).

9 Fourth, the Commission concluded that, by its conduct on those two markets, Microsoft was infringing Article 82 EC. It considered that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position by refusing to supply the interoperability information and to authorise its use for the development and distribution of products competing with its own products on the work group server operating system market during the period October 1998 to the date of notification of the Decision (recitals 546 to 791 to and Article 2(a) of the Decision). The Commission also considered that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position by making the availability of Windows conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of Windows Media Player during the period May 1999 to the date of notification of the Decision (recitals 792 to 989 to and Article 2(b) of the Decision).

10 Fifth, the Commission ordered Microsoft to bring those infringements to an end, to refrain from any conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect and to implement a series of remedies within certain periods (recitals 994 to 1053 to and Articles 4 to 8...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT