Microsoft's Precrimes
Quarrels between the European Commission and Microsoft seem to be the daily bread in Brussels. In the beginning there was Mario Monti, who as EU antitrust chief in 2004 fined Microsoft a record �497 million for a series of violations, including its "bundling" of Media Player with its Windows operating system. Mr. Monti's successor, Neelie Kroes, didn't trade the iron fist for a velvet glove: Earlier this year she fined the software giant another �280.5 million for not having complied with the Commission's orders. It is worth noting that the latter fine came even though the original case is still under judicial review.
Above and beyond this fumus persecutionis, another dispute that's coming out into the open between Ms. Kroes and Microsoft entails possibly significant consequences for the very essence of competition regulation, which is at risk of becoming antitrust policing.
Since March, the Commission has expressed concerns about Vista, the new version of Windows, ready to be released in a few months but waiting for an informal greenlight from Brussels. Ms. Kroes has said that she expects Microsoft to apply "the general principle" of the Commission's 2004 ruling to future Windows versions.
This claim is based on the assumption that the original ruling can be a source of legal restraint far above its original scope. Leaving aside its merits or shortcomings, the Monti decision on Media Player orders Microsoft only to "refrain from using any technological, commercial, contractual or any other means which would have the equivalent effect of tying [Media Player] to Windows."
Ms. Kroes's objections do not seem to take into account the general trend in information technology to marry previously independent functions. Among others, Google is showing this to be the way forward by integrating plenty of formerly independent functions -- from daily planners to spreadsheets -- into its email service, and by piling up ever more functions into its search engine. Dictating business strategies should not be a regulator's job.
Furthermore, from a mere procedural point of view, the situation today is not comparable to the one that led to Mr. Monti's original ruling. Though first developed in 1998, Microsoft's Media Player was integrated in Windows XP in 2001. This led to complaints by the then major supplier of analogous software, RealNetworks, on both the sides of the Atlantic. RealNetworks won the game in Europe, and Mr. Monti forced Microsoft to release a version of XP without Media Player.
Real's complaints in Europe and the U.S. also led to a business agreement that the two companies signed in October 2005. One of the peace treaty's key points concerns Vista: The new program will redirect users to a Web site to download the Real software needed to play Real media files. The Media Player dispute really seems to be over for the litigants -- if not for the regulator.
* * *
The case of Vista is unprecedented in another way as well. The Commission is threatening Microsoft not to violate the "spirit" of an older decision -- i.e., not to bundle too many new features with its new operating system. In a subtle way, this time it is the regulator that is casting the first stone.
As Brussels ponders a revamping of its monopoly policies, there is a demand among experts for the Commission to focus more on consumer welfare per se than on the form that a particular business practice takes (e.g., exclusive deals or bundling). However, forms cannot be bypassed.
Vista is not the same program that the EU has already ruled about -- and this is not merely a matter of "forms." The new operating system's alleged future dominance is merely a prediction, albeit a reasonable one based on the history of previous iterations of Windows. Still, there can be no evidence of the size of Vista's market share until it is released and sold.
What's more, the Commission already has shown little success in predicting the future when it comes to Microsoft. Two years on, it seems clear that Mr. Monti's concerns about Media Player's becoming dominant in its market segment were greatly exaggerated. In spite of its integration within Windows, Media Player had to face aggressive competition, and there is no sign that RealAudio or Apple's iTunes could not grow their market shares because they were not bundled with Windows (iTunes is of course bundled in Apple's Mac OS). In fact, the opposite has proven true: A recent Nielsen/NetRatings survey found that Apple's iTunes Web site and software reach 14% of Internet users world-wide -- up 241% in just one year. What's more, the market demand for the Media Player-less version of Windows XL was so minimal as to be an embarrassment for Mr. Monti, who had cited consumer choices as one reason for ruling against Microsoft in 2004.
Ms. Kroes's apparent desire to apply the old Monti ruling to an as-yet-unreleased Vista raises an obvious question. As far as antitrust cases, the Commission is already prosecutor, judge and jury. Shall its powers expand over the boundaries of time, too?
* * *
In "Minority Report," a 1956 Philip K. Dick short story made famous by a Steven Spielberg film a few years ago, murders are prevented before they happen thanks to three mutants who foresee the future. The system initially works, but quickly collapses as a former policeman proved it incompatible with justice and the rule of law.
Neelie Kroes has said it would be desirable for the newer Windows "to avoid the problems we are facing now." In a nutshell, this is the cornerstone of a new approach to competition policy: a doctrine of harm pre-emption, so to speak. Whether such a doctrine is to be applied to cases other than Microsoft's remains to be seen.
But "Minority Report" reminds us of a simple, stubborn fact: You cannot be "guilty" of any crime before you have commited it and been accused, much less proven, of having committed it. This is a basic tenant of legal certainty as we know it. Why should it not continue to apply to competition policy?
Mr. Mingardi is director general of Istituto Bruno Leoni, a Milan-based free-market think tank.
微软之“潜在罪行”
欧盟委员会(European Commission)与微软(Microsoft)之间的口角似乎已成了布鲁塞尔的家常便饭。2004年，时任欧盟反垄断专员的蒙蒂(Mario Monti)对微软的一系列违规行为开出了一张4.97亿欧元的天价罚单。他给微软列出的罪名里包括将媒体播放器与Windows操作系统“捆绑”销售。
蒙蒂的继任者克罗斯(Neelie Kroes)也毫不手软：今年早些时候，她以微软未能遵守欧盟命令为由又罚了微软2.805亿欧元。这里值得指出的一点是，在克罗斯作出后面这项罚款决定的时候，前面的那场官司还未了结。
除了这个裁决之外，克罗斯和微软之间的另一场逐渐公开化的争执可能会对竞争监管的本质产生重大影响──眼下，反垄断监管大有演变成管制之虞。
3月份以来，欧盟委员会就对Windows的新版本Vista表现出担忧。Vista的发行工作数月前就已准备就绪，但欧盟委员会迟迟没有对它开绿灯。克罗斯曾表示，她准备对微软Windows软件的未来版本也适用欧盟2004年对微软的反垄断裁决中运用的“一般原则”。
这一表态是基于这样一个假设：原来的裁决可以作为在最初范围之外采取司法限制措施的一个依据。且不说蒙蒂有关微软媒体播放器的裁决是否合理，它也只是要求微软“不得使用任何可能会产生与将播放器与Windows捆绑同等效果的技术、商业、合约及其他手段”。
克罗斯对微软所谓垄断行为的反对似乎没有考虑到信息技术行业出现的将已有独立技术逐渐整合的总体趋势。在其他公司也可见到这样的趋势，比如谷歌(Google)，它将大量以前单独应用的功能都整合到其邮件服务里，还在搜索引擎里也加入了更多功能。对业务策略指手画脚不该是监管机构的职能。
而且，即使只从程序的角度看，现在的情况与当初蒙蒂那个时候也不可比了。微软的媒体播放器最早是在1998年开发的，但2001年被加入进Windows XP里。这种做法当时遭到了同类软件供应商RealNetworks的不满，后者在大西洋两岸先后对微软提出指控。后来RealNetworks在欧洲打赢了官司，蒙蒂要求微软发布一款不带播放器的Windows XP。
随后，RealNetworks与微软在2005年10月签署了一份商业协议，其中有一个关键点涉及Vista：这款系统软件会指引用户进入网站下载用于播放Real多媒体文档的Real软件。对两家公司来说，有关微软播放器的纠纷看起来是真地过去了，不过对监管机构来说却未必。
Vista案从另一个方面来说也是前所未有的。欧盟委员会要求微软不要违反一项旧裁决的“精神”──也就是不要在新的操作系统里捆绑太多新功能。确切一点来说，这次是监管方首先发起攻击的。
在欧盟考虑修改反垄断政策的时候，有专家提出应更多关注消费者利益，而不是纠缠某种特定商业行为所采取的形式（诸如排他性交易或捆绑销售等）。不过，形式问题还是不能回避的。
Vista与欧盟此前裁决的软件不是一回事－－这就不仅是形式问题了。这种操作系统所谓的未来的主导地位只是一种预言，虽然从Windows以往的情况来看这种预言很有其合理之处。不过，在Vista发布并出售之前，没有什么迹象能据以预测它的市场份额。
而且，欧盟委员会对微软的未来预测鲜有成功的先例。现在看来，蒙蒂两年前对微软播放器会占据太大市场的担忧显然是太夸张了。
虽然播放器已被整合到Windwos里面，但它仍要面对外界的激烈竞争，而且，RealAudio以及苹果电脑(Apple)的iTunes并未因没有跟Windows捆绑而出现市场占有率裹足不前的迹象（iTunes当然是跟苹果的Mac OS操作系统捆绑。）事实上，情况正好相反：据Nielsen/NetRatings最近的调查，全世界登录过或使用过iTune网站或软件的互联网用户的比例一年内上升了241%，达到14%。
而且，未安装播放器的Windows XL版本市场需求很小，这与蒙蒂的预言大相径庭，他在2004年处理微软案时曾将消费者愿意选择上述版本作为裁决的一个理由。
克罗斯明确希望将蒙蒂以前的裁决也用在Vista上面，这样显然会带来一个问题，那就是：在处理垄断案时，欧盟委员会已是一个集检察官、法官、陪审团三种身份于一身的角色了，难道它还要再让自己的权力超越时间的局限吗？
在菲利普?迪克(Philip K. Dick) 1956年发表的短篇小说《少数派报告》里，借助一套能预知即将发生的罪行的制度，三个具有特异功能的人阻止了多起潜在恶行的发生。这套系统起初很成功，但在一位曾当过警察的人发现它与正义和法律不相容时，这套系统很快崩溃了。斯皮尔伯格(Steven Spielberg)根据这部小说改编的同名电影曾经轰动一时。
克罗斯曾表示，希望新的Windows系统“能避免我们现在面对的问题”。简单地说，这是通向竞争政策的新道路的基石：或者说，是一套事先消灭罪恶的教条。这样一种教条是否会被用在微软之外的其他案子上还有待观察。
不过，《少数派报告》提醒我们这样一个不用多想的简单事实：任何人在作出犯罪行为且并被指控有犯罪行为、乃至在被证明犯罪之前都是“无罪”的。这是法律的基本要义。为什么不能将这条也用在有关竞争监管的问题上呢？
（编者按：本文作者Alberto Mingardi是米兰市场开放智囊机构Istituto Bruno Leoni的总干事。）
