As regards interoperability, in its Microsoft judgment of 17 September 2007,
the Court of First Instance confirmed the principles that must be respected by
dominant companies as regards interoperability disclosures. In the complaint by
ECIS, Microsoft is alleged to have illegally refused to disclose
interoperability information across a broad range of products, including
information related to its Office suite, a number of its server products, and
also in relation to the so called .NET Framework. The Commission's
examination will therefore focus on all these areas, including the question
whether Microsoft's new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office,
is sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products.
As for the tying of separate software products, in its Microsoft judgment of
17 September 2007, the Court of First Instance confirmed the principles that
must be respected by dominant companies. In a complaint by Opera, a competing
browser vendor, Microsoft is alleged to have engaged in illegal tying of its
Internet Explorer product to its dominant Windows operating system. The
complaint alleges that there is ongoing competitive harm from Microsoft's
practices, in particular in view of new proprietary technologies that Microsoft
has allegedly introduced in its browser that would reduce compatibility with
open internet standards, and therefore hinder competition. In addition,
allegations of tying of other separate software products by Microsoft, including
desktop search and Windows Live have been brought to the Commission's attention.
The Commission's investigation will therefore focus on allegations that a range
of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating
system.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 14 Nov 16"1998 Sun complains to the EC on Microsoft's dominant position as a supplier of operating systems for personal computers. 02/2000 EC launches investigation on Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct ("Case No. COMP/C-3/37.792"). Two main issues are under investigation: (1) lack of interoperability information, and (2) incorporation of Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system."
Paul Merrell on 14 Nov 16EC v. Microsoft was a landmark advance in the law governing software interoperability. In the preceding case in the U.S., the courts refused to set a standard for the degree of "compatibility" that Microsoft would have to provide competitors. Forewarned, the DG Competition prosecutors had done their homework. Commission v. Microsoft, No. T-167/08, European Community Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber Judgment of 17 September, 2007), para. 230, 374, 421, http://preview.tinyurl.com/chsdb4w (rejecting Microsoft's argument that "interoperability" has a 1-way rather than 2-way meaning; information technology specifications must be disclosed with sufficient specificity to place competitors on an "equal footing" with Mictrosoft's own software in regard to interoperability; "the 12th recital to Directive 91/250 defines interoperability as 'the ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged'").