• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

EU: Microsoft Raised IP Rights As Late Defence In European Case

12/02/2008 by David Cronin for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

By David Cronin for Intellectual Property Watch
BRUSSELS – The European Commission has accused Microsoft of invoking intellectual property rights “in the eleventh hour” to protect its dominant position in the global computer market.

Per Hellstrom, a senior official in the Commission’s directorate-general for competition, indicated on Monday that the European Union’s antitrust efforts against Microsoft have not ceased, despite a landmark legal ruling last year. Speaking at an 11 February event in Brussels, Hellstrom said that Microsoft had invoked intellectual property rights “only in the eleventh hour” of the probe against it, which also related to its refusal to share information with competitors.

In September, the European Court of First Instance upheld a €497 million euro fine against Microsoft that the Commission imposed in 2004. This penalty, the largest ever handed out in an EU competition case, followed a probe in which the Commission concluded that Microsoft had been ‘bundling’ its flagship Windows – an operating system found in 95 percent of the world’s personal computers – with the company’s MediaPlayer.

Because most personal computers run Windows, they are often unable to be linked up to larger computers – or servers – running alternative operating systems.

Microsoft’s rival Sun Microsystems had complained to the Commission that the US software giant would not grant it data needed to ensure that Windows was interoperable.

“Microsoft’s defence was that the information was covered by intellectual property rights,” Hellstrom said. “This argument was never used when Sun asked for the information. It was only used in the eleventh hour. Microsoft showed one patent a day before we adopted our decision [in 2004].”

He maintained that this refusal was designed to “eliminate competition” and that it had an adverse impact on technological development.

Last month, the Commission announced it was conducting a new investigation into Microsoft. Following a complaint by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, the Commission decided to study accusations that Microsoft is denying access to information on a range of its products, including Office, a widely-used package that includes word-processing and spreadsheet applications.

Microsoft’s Brussels office declined to comment on Hellstrom’s comments, which were delivered at a seminar hosted by Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue. The TACD bands together 65 consumer organisations from Europe and the United States.

The seminar explored what steps are needed to ensure that related technologies developed by different firms can interact with each other.

David Lippeatt, an economic and finance officer with the US mission in Brussels, said that problems with a lack of standardisation have been evident in his country for more than 100 years. In the early nineteenth century a fire occurred in Baltimore, which resulted in $125 million dollars worth of damage. When fire services from other regions were called in, they found that they their hose connections could not fit into the hydrants used in Baltimore.

Still, he argued against governments advocating stringent rules on interoperability. “Mandating interoperability risks depriving intellectual property owners of the right to their property,” he said, arguing that “market forces and not governments” should promote solutions to problems that occur in the technological field.

But André Rebentisch from the European Software Market Association said it is vital that small firms be allowed to use computer products without having to pay royalties to larger firms that hold patents on those goods. Robust action by public authorities is needed to help small and medium-sized firms, he added.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher with the United Nations University in Maastricht, Netherlands, noted that royalty-free standards are already being used in the computer industry. For example, the World Wide Web Consortium, a body dedicated to greater advancement of the Internet, promotes interoperable software.

“Standards inherently limit innovation,” he said. “Standards are there to be the common ground on which innovation takes place. But there is also a value to standards. If there is some great new ICT [information and communication technology] and I’m the only one who uses it, it is not very valuable to me.”

David Cronin may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"EU: Microsoft Raised IP Rights As Late Defence In European Case" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: News, Access to Knowledge/ Education, Copyright Policy, Enforcement, English, Europe, Human Rights, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, Innovation/ R&D, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.