A Costly Victory For the EU Against Microsoft
Amid the Christmas cards and good cheer, another 90-page antitrust ruling about Microsoft may somehow have passed unread. But perhaps the headline at least registered: Microsoft failed to get a stay of execution on the European Commission's decision. So the company must now implement the order requiring it to share with competitors certain information relating to computer interoperability, and must offer for sale a version of Windows that does not include Windows Media Player. But this was only a ruling on the question of suspension: The appeal proper continues in parallel. What light does the interim ruling cast on the prospects for the full decision?
The Dec. 22 ruling was by Judge Bo Vesterdorf alone, as president of the EU's Court of First Instance. A full panel will hear the appeal in the coming months, with a ruling not to be expected for months thereafter, perhaps well into 2006. So the president's ruling will be keenly read by those on all sides for what guidance it offers on the underlying issues of the European Commission's case against the Redmond, Washington, software giant.
The immediate focus of the ruling was the harm Microsoft would suffer if it had to comply with the decision pending the appeal judgment. If Microsoft wins in the end, will it have suffered serious harm of a kind that could not then be made good? Deciding on this issue of urgency did not require the president of the court to express any view on the merits of Microsoft's appeal arguments; Judge Vesterdorf was unpersuaded on the question of urgency, and he could have cut short his ruling there, as he indeed did in choosing not to address the balancing of the various interests involved. On the other hand, he could also have thrown out the application if he felt that the appeal as a whole had no real chance of success. But quite on the contrary, the president expressly ruled that there was meat in various of the objections raised by Microsoft and that these would need serious consideration by the full judicial panel.
So the failure to get a stay of the remedies was a battle lost for Microsoft, but the prospects for the longer-term war look rather brighter. Indeed, the president recognized "prima facie" merit in MS's arguments both on the interoperability issue and on the bundling of Windows Media Player.
The controversy around interoperability is one of compulsory licensing. When can an intellectual-property holder be obliged to grant licenses? EU law as it stands says that this is permissible only in "exceptional circumstances." It has only been done before in relation to low-grade IP, for example the copyright in a listing of TV programs. Judge Vesterdorf accepted that Microsoft's "hitherto secret specifications" were "fundamentally different" in character from TV listings, and that there was a real question whether this should be a distinguishing factor. He acknowledged doubt as to whether the commission's order met the conditions set by the court in its earlier cases. And he identified as the "central issue" whether the commission had struck the right balance between protecting competition on the one hand, and the negative effects that compulsory licensing has on the incentives of companies to innovate.
Concerning Windows Media Player, Judge Vesterdorf found that Microsoft had raised "important questions of principle" and "complex issues." The controversy here is whether Microsoft had unlawfully "bundled" its Media Player with Windows. Here, the president of the court raised the simple but fundamental issue of whether these could be looked at as two separate products in the first place, since integration of media functionality had been industry practice for many years.
On that issue alone the commission's case could crumble, without advancing further into the complexities of the argument. But Judge Vesterdorf did not shy from addressing this complexity, asking whether the commission had sufficiently considered the benefits of Microsoft's design concept and the objective benefits that may flow from a standardization led by one company. More generally there were open factual issues whether, with the abundance and success of competing media players, the commission had demonstrated the existence of alleged "indirect network effects" by which the market would supposedly tip in Microsoft's favor in the absence of commission intervention in the market.
Tempting as it may be, we should not seek to divine final outcomes from these judicial tea leaves -- although the phrasing of some passages in the ruling do seem to hint at a certain enthusiasm for the points under discussion. The commission's decision has survived its first test, but the finer points of the ruling must leave it less confident of prevailing in the end. Until the court rules, it -- and we -- therefore face a limbo period.
Still, there are important issues to address in the coming months. While former Competition Commissioner Mario Monti succeeded in bringing reform to many areas of EU competition law, a reform initiative in relation to the law on market dominance signally failed to advance. Like Mr. Monti before her, incoming Commissioner Neelie Kroes already finds her freedom of maneuver in this area constrained by older case law from the European Courts. In addition she now faces the uncertain prospect of the full ruling on Microsoft's affairs. EU policy on dominant companies is presently at odds with U.S. policy. The body of EU case law is unduly legalistic, not yet suffused with the respect for economics that has become the standard in other areas of competition law, and the position taken by the court in the field of abuse of dominance has not always been as economics-oriented as competition authorities in Europe nowadays advocate. The question may fairly be asked whether the EU's best interests lie in leaving future policy with the court; or whether the incoming commissioner would be better advised to settle with Microsoft, cut short the appeal process and set to work bringing some clarity to this unsatisfactory area of law and practice.
Mr. Burnside is joint head of the antitrust practice at the international law firm Linklaters. He is an adviser to Microsoft
一次代价高昂的胜利
在铺天盖地的圣诞卡和祝贺新年的阵阵欢呼声中，针对微软的又一份反垄断裁决书或许早被人们抛在了一边，但是，媒体新闻标题上或许至少会有这样的句子：微软要求延迟执行欧盟委员会(European Commission)决定的请求未获通过。因此，该公司现在必须执行裁决。裁决要求微软与竞争对手分享某些与产品兼容性有关的信息，并且必须在市场上出售未捆绑Windows媒体播放器的Windows产品。但是，这仅仅是针对延迟执行问题的一次裁决，微软的上诉还在受理之中。这个初步裁决会对整个诉讼未来的最后结果产生怎样的影响呢？
12月22日的裁决是欧洲初审法院院长、法官韦斯特道夫(Judge Bo Vesterdorf)独立作出的。接下来的几个月里，一个正式的专家委员会将对微软的上诉举行听证，不过，恐怕很难在随后几个月就对上诉作出裁决，估计可能会等到2006年以后了。有鉴于此，有关各方想必将仔细研读初审法院院长的裁决，揣摩此次裁决将对欧盟处罚微软的决定中的一些实质问题有何指导意义。
上述裁决随即引发的焦点问题是，如果微软不得不执行这个裁决，那么微软会遭受怎样的伤害？而即使微软最后胜诉，它在此过程中受到的损害是否将无可挽回？对这个亟待解决的问题作出决定并不需要院长大人就微软上诉意见中值得肯定之处发表任何意见；韦斯特道夫法官并未因这起诉讼的紧迫性而给予特殊对待，而且他本可以简化了裁决过程，因为他已决定不考虑当事各方利益平衡问题。另一方面，如果他认为上诉总体来说根本没有胜诉的机会，他或许根本无需受理微软的上诉。
但情况刚好相反，院长先生明确表示，微软方面提出的反对意见也有可取之处，审判委员会需对这些意见进行认真考虑。
因此，虽然微软延缓执行的努力没能成功，但微软在和欧盟委员会这场旷日持久的官司中的前景却相当明朗起来。的确如此。院长就表示微软的上诉书在相互协作问题和Windows捆绑媒体播放器问题上的意见初步看来很有些道理。
围绕产品兼容性的争论事关强迫专利拥有者提供授权许可的问题。什么时候才会强迫知识产权的持有人提供授权许可？欧盟的法律规定，这种要求只在特殊情况下才能被批准。以前只出现过一次“特殊情况”，是与低级别知识产权有关的问题，如电视节目指南的版权问题。韦斯特道夫法官承认，微软“迄今为止的秘密代码”与电视节目清单“有本质上的不同”，而且，这是否可作为需区别对待的情况的确值得商榷。
他承认，对于委员会的决定与欧洲法院以前的一些案例是否一致他也持怀疑态度。而且他认为，委员会在保护竞争和强制提供许可对企业创新积极性的负面影响之间是否做到了恰当的平衡是一个“核心问题”。
关于Windows附带的媒体播放器，韦斯特道夫法官认为，微软提出了“重要的原则性问题”和“复杂的问题”。有关的争论在于，微软是否在Windows上违规捆绑了播放器。在这个问题上，韦斯特道夫提出了一个简单但很根本的问题：首先，这两个东西是否可被视为两件独立的产品。要知道，将媒体处理功能集成到产品上的做法在业界多年前就有了。
无需对媒体播放器捆绑销售问题的复杂性作进一步的探究，因为这个问题上委员会的理由实际上是站不住脚的。但韦斯特道夫法官不厌其烦地要解决这个复杂问题，他问到，委员会是否充分考虑到了微软设计思想的优越性以及由一家公司推动的标准化所能带来的客观好处了呢？从更宽泛的意义上来说，还有一些事实方面的问题有待探讨，比如说，随著其他公司媒体播放器软件的层出不穷以及其中的一些产品大获成功，委员会是否能表明其所谓“间接的网络效应”的存在呢？委员会曾声称，在没有其干预的情况下，这种效应会让市场向有利于微软的方向倾斜。
我们可能会忍不住试图猜想法律精英人士最后决定的结果，不过我们不应这么做，尽管初审法院裁决书的部分段落在措辞上对人们正在讨论的问题很有暗示作用。委员会的裁决已经受了第一轮考验，但是，裁决书的细节问题必会让委员会对于取得最后胜利不那么自信。在法院作出裁决之前，委员会还有我们都将处于忐忑不安之中。
不过，今后数月还有一些重要问题有待解决。尽管欧盟前反不正当竞争专员蒙蒂(Mario Monti)成功地在欧盟竞争法的诸多领域引入了改革，但在有关市场主导地位的法律相关问题方面，改革仍没有明显进展。
接替蒙蒂的克罗丝(Neelie Kroes)已经感受到，就像她的前任蒙蒂一样，她在这个深受欧洲法院古老的案例法束缚的领域将有自由发挥的空间。另外，她现在也处于对微软案作出正式裁决前的不确定时期。目前，欧盟对于占市场主导地位公司的政策与美国有明显冲突。
欧洲的案例法过于因循守旧，没有考虑到经济效益这个因素，而经济效益已成为其他地区竞争法的评判标准，而且，法院在处理滥用市场主导地位问题时采取的立场并不总是像欧洲反不正当竞争机构倡导的那样从经济效益这个角度出发。
人们有理由要问，为了欧盟的最佳利益，欧盟是否应把未来政策的决定权留给法庭；或者，刚上任的克罗丝专员是否会听从劝告与微软实现和解，简化上诉程序，并开始著手给这个在法律条文和法律实务上都不能让人满意的领域带来一些透明度。
编者按：本文作者埃里克?伯恩赛(Alec Burnside)是国际法事务所Linklaters反垄断法事务主管。他还是微软公司(Microsoft)的法律顾问。
