Microsoft: Difference between revisions

===Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2004-2007)===

The EU began an investigation of Microsoft in 1998, following a complaint by Sun Microsystems for not disclosing some interfaces to Windows NT. During August 2001, the EU expanded the investigation to look at how streaming media technology has been integrated into Windows.<ref>{{cite news |last=McCullagh |first=Declan |date=2002-07-01 |title=EU looks to wrap up Microsoft probe |url=http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120907171103/http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |archive-date=2012-09-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CNET}}</ref> Microsoft was found guilty of illegally abusing its dominant position in the operating system market<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=2007-09-17 |title=EUR-Lex - 62004TJ0201 - Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007. Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities. |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150725161632/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |archive-date=2015-07-25 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=EUR-Lex}}</ref> in order to dominate the entertainment market and push out competitors. It did this by bundling Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system, despite them being two distinct products, allowing "that media player automatically to achieve a level of market penetration corresponding to that of the dominant undertaking’s client PC operating system, without having to compete on the merits with competing products".<ref name=":6" />

The case was settled and Microsoft was fined €497 million ($613 million) - the largest fine for abuse of a dominant position at the time{{Citation needed|reason=is this still the case?}} - as well as having to provide a version of its Windows operating system without a bundled media player<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=2004-03-25 |title=Microsoft hit by record EU fine |url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060413082435/http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |archive-date=2006-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=CNN}}</ref> (called Windows XP Home Edition N<ref name="WinXPSRedmondMag2">{{cite news |last=Bekker |first=Scot |date=2005-03-28 |title=European Windows Called 'Windows XP Home Edition N' |url=http://www.redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050407081820/http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |archive-date=2005-04-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=Redmondmag.com}}</ref><ref name="WinXPSBBC">{{cite news |date=2005-03-28 |title=Microsoft and EU reach agreement |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222031525/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |archive-date=2005-12-22 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=BBC}}</ref>). However, this ruling seems insufficient to reduce Microsoft's monopolistic control as Microsoft priced it the same as its bundled counterpart and the ruling didn't prevent them from selling Windows XP Home Edition. Consumer interest was low, and major OEMs did not preinstall XP N on their computers.<ref name="WinXPlite">{{cite news |last=Wearden |first=Graeme |date=2005-06-28 |title=Windows XP-lite 'not value for money' |url=http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39131434,00.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051102014905/http://management.silicon.com/government/0%2C39024677%2C39131434%2C00.htm |archive-date=2005-11-02 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Silicon.com}}</ref>

See also: [[wikipedia:Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Commission|''Microsoft Corp. v European Commission'' (Wikipedia)]]

Valuelicensing, a UK reseller of software licenses, sued Microsoft for "suppressing the availability of preowned perpetual licences" and restricting customers from reselling old licenses in exchange for more favourable terms on newer, subscription-based models<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2022-07-08 |title=Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708112410/https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |archive-date=2022-07-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref>, claiming £270 million in damages.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2021-04-08 |title=UK reseller sues Microsoft for £270m in damages claiming prohibitive contracts choke off surplus Office licence supplies |url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210408123252/https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |archive-date=2021-04-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref> In the ongoing case, Microsoft has used contradictory and inconsistent defences.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2025-01-06 |title=Microsoft's spat with ValueLicensing limps toward 2026 showdown |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/valuelicensing_microsoft_trial_date/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250106143914/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/valuelicensing_microsoft_trial_date/ |archive-date=2025-01-06 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=The Register}}</ref>