Timeline of European Commission Case Against Microsoft
A timeline of events of the European Commission's case against Microsoft Corp.
Updated: September 2007
1998
The European Commission investigation into Microsoft’s business practices is initiated by a complaint from Sun Microsystems claiming that Microsoft had failed to provide technical information needed for servers running Sun’s Solaris operating system to fully interoperate with PCs running Windows.
2000
In August, after a year and a half investigation, the EC issues its first Statement of Objections to Microsoft that alleges that Microsoft withheld information that would have allowed interoperability of third-party server operating systems with PCs running Windows.
In November, Microsoft responds and submits customer statements establishing that most enterprise customers already have heterogeneous computing networks and that interoperability is a market reality.
2001
The Commission initiates a separate investigation. In August, it issues a second Statement of Objections asserting that Microsoft held a dominant position in the market for workgroup servers and was hindering interoperability between Windows server and third-party server operating systems. It also alleges that Microsoft competes unfairly with Real Networks and other vendors of media players by “tying” Windows Media Player with Windows, even though multimedia functionality had been an integral part of the Windows operating system since 1989.
In October, Microsoft responds that it does not hold a dominant position in the market for workgroup servers, that client-server and server-server interoperability is a reality in European computing environments, and that the inclusion of multimedia playback functionality in the operating system is part of the natural development of the operating system and does not prevent competitors from offering alternatives to consumers.
2002
Microsoft enters into discussions with DG Competition officials with a view to settling the EU case.
2003
DG Competition undertakes a broad survey of IT professionals and industry players in order to collect additional evidence in support of the objections raised against Microsoft.
In August, the Commission issues a third Statement of Objections that addresses both its ‘interoperability’ and Windows Media Player allegations.
In October, Microsoft responds that the Commission’s evidence does not support its case. Microsoft requests an oral hearing, which takes place November in Brussels.
2004
Microsoft remains actively engaged with the Commission in discussions of a possible settlement.
On March 18, then-Competition Commissioner Mario Monti brings the settlement discussions to a close without resolution.
On March 24, the Commission issued a decision finding Microsoft in breach of European competition law through the abuse of a dominant market position. The Commission’s remedy requires Microsoft to create a version of Windows without Windows Media Player and to license Windows Server communications protocols.
In May, Microsoft files an appeal with the European Court of First Instance on the Commission’s decision, and in June, specifically asks the Court to suspend implementation of the remedy until after the Court renders a decision.
On December 21, the Court denies Microsoft’s request to suspend the implementation of the remedy in the interim.
In December, Microsoft delivers the first draft of the technical documentation to the Commission.
2005
In January, Microsoft delivers a draft of the licensing program for its Windows Server communications protocols.
In June, Microsoft releases a version of Windows in Europe without multimedia functionality – Windows XP N. Also, the Commission declares it is “happy” with Microsoft’s progress on the implementation of the remedies.
In October, the Commission adopts a decision to appoint a “monitoring trustee” and appoints Prof. Neil Barrett to the post.
On November 15, the Commission adopts an Article 24.1 decision against Microsoft alleging that the company had failed to comply with its March 2004 decision on the question of the completeness and accuracy of the technical documentation of the communications protocols. The decision threatens penalties of €2 million a day if Microsoft is not in full compliance with its decision by December 15.
On December 15, Microsoft makes available revised technical documentation amounting to 12,000 pages as well as information on the pricing and categorization of protocol licences.
On December 22, the Commission issues a fourth Statement of Objections stating that Microsoft was not in compliance with the decision in regard to technical documentation and that daily penalties would ensue.
2006
On January 24, Microsoft announces it will make source code available for the technologies covered by the Commission’s decision to any licensees in the European licensing program.
On February 15 Microsoft files its response to the fifth Statement of Objections and requests an oral hearing.
On March 30, a two-day oral hearing on compliance commences in Brussels.
On March 31, a meeting of the Monitoring Trustee and Microsoft engineers creates a draft template for the technical documentation.
On April 9, a meeting in London of the Commission, the Monitoring Trustee and Microsoft engineers finalises and agrees on a template for the redevelopment of the technical documentation and a timeline for its delivery. The project specifies 7 milestones for delivery of packages of protocols and is named ‘Project Circle Line’.
On April 24, the hearing in Microsoft’s appeal of the Commission’s decision begins before the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. For five days the 13 judges hear the detailed arguments of all the parties to the case.
April – June, each milestone is reached over the lifetime of Project Circle Line.
On July 12, the Commission fines Microsoft €280.5 million for non-compliance with the March 2004 decision and announces that any further finding on non-compliance will result in fines of up to €3 million per day.
On July 21 Microsoft delivers the final package of documentation to the Monitoring Trustee on deadline. The Monitoring Trustee’s team begin bench testing of the documentation.
From September through November, the Monitoring Trustee’s team continue to review documentation and provide comments to Microsoft. Microsoft revises documents as requested.
On November 15, Commissioner Neelie Kroes announces to the press a Thanksgiving Day (November 23) deadline for all final revisions to the documentation.
On November 23, all final revisions are submitted to the Monitoring Trustee and the European Commission and Microsoft announce the availability of the documentation to potential licensees.
2007
On March 1, the Commission issues a fifth Statement of Objections stating that Microsoft is not in compliance with the March 2004 decision in regard to protocol pricing.
On March 8, Microsoft and Quest Inc, announce that Quest has become the first licensee in the Work Group Server Protocol Program (WSPP) set up by order of the European Commission in their March 2004 antitrust decision.
On April 23, Microsoft files its response to the Commissions pricing objections. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith says the company will not seek a hearing: “We continue to seek to resolve these recent issues. We need greater clarity on what prices the Commission wants us to charge, and we believe that is more likely to come from a constructive conversation than from a formal hearing.”
On September 17 at 9.30 CET, the European Court of First Instance will rule on Microsoft’s appeal of the European Commission’s March 2004 decision.
